Rajiv Sahai Endlaw JUDGMENT
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.
1. This intra-court appeal impugns the order dated 26th April, 2012 of the learned Single Judge of this Court, of dismissal of W.P. (C) No. 2458/2012 preferred by the appellant.
2. The writ petition from which this appeal arises, was filed impugning the order dated 24th November, 2011 (the said order, on the first page bears the date of decision as 25th October, 2011 but is signed on 24th November, 2011) and three orders, all dated 7th February, 2012, of the Central Information Commission (CIC) under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), in exercise of powers under Section 20(2) of the RTI Act, recommending disciplinary action against the appellant in her capacity as the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the Trade Marks Registry, Delhi and in exercise of powers under Section 20(1) imposing penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the appellant and further issuing notices to show cause under Section 20(1) of the Act to the appellant.
3. The appeal came up before this Court first on 31st May, 2012 when the same was admitted for hearing and the order of the CIC in so far as recommending disciplinary action against the appellant was stayed. As far as the order imposing penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the appellant was concerned, we were on that date informed that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- had already been deducted from the salary of the appellant. We accordingly ordered that there shall not be any further deduction from the salary of the appellant. The said interim order has continued in force. The appeal was vide order dated 21st January, 2013 ordered to be listed in the category of 'Regulars' as per its turn. The appellant filed CM No. 13772/2014 for expeditious hearing of the appeal pleading, (i) that she had joined the service, in the Trade Marks Registry, a subordinate office of the Ministry of Commerce & Industry, in January, 1994 as Sr. Examiner of Trade Marks through UPSC as a direct recruit and was in June, 2006 promoted as Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks; (ii) that she was in June, 2011 eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks; (iii) however as per the recommendation dated 24th November, 2011 supra of the CIC, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against her on 7th May, 2012; (iv) that though the said disciplinary proceedings were stayed vide interim order in this appeal but the proceedings qua her of the DPC held for promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar held on 29th May, 2013 were kept in sealed cover in view of a charge sheet having been served on her; and, (v) that she is due for retirement on superannuation on 30th June, 2015 and in the continued state of affairs, her pensionary benefits are likely to be withheld.
4. The said application was allowed and the appeal posted on 27th November, 2014 for hearing. After hearing the senior counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the Union of India on 27th November, 2014, orders were reserved. The counsel for the respondents no. 3 & 6 to 9 made an application explaining reason for his absence on 27th November, 2014 and seeking hearing of the appeal. The counsel for the respondents no. 3 & 6 to 9 was also heard on the appeal on 6th January, 2015. On that date, the counsel for the respondent no. 2 also appeared. Both were given liberty to file written arguments and judgment was again reserved.
5. We have considered the matter.
6. The appellant filed the writ petition from which this appeal arises pleading,
(i) that while working as ........