Times of India: Chandigarh: Monday, 17 August 2026.
The Punjab State Information Commission has ruled that an inquiry officer appointed by the state govt falls within the definition of a “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.
Directing a retired
additional district and sessions judge (ADJ) to provide information regarding
inquiries conducted by him, chief information commissioner Inderpal Singh held
that the officer was “controlled” by the govt.
The case stems from an RTI application filed by a Chandigarh resident seeking data on the number of inquiries assigned, pending and completed by the retired ADJ between Jan 2020 and June 2023. The personnel department initially denied the information, suggesting the applicant approach the individual departments that commissioned the inquiries.
The retired ADJ argued he was not a public authority and had no statutory obligation under Section 4 to maintain records. He said original files and reports were returned to departments upon completion, and that he was provided no secretarial assistance.
The commission observed that inquiry officers handling civil or corruption cases must maintain records systematically. Without records, an officer cannot prove that files were handed over or justify remuneration claims.
The bench framed three key issues, focusing on whether an inquiry officer falls under Section 2(h)(d)(i) of RTI Act as a body “owned, controlled, or substantially financed” by the govt. Examining the scope of govt oversight, compliance guidelines and administrative direction, the bench concluded inquiry officers are “controlled” by the state.
The commission said the personnel department panelled the officer and highlighted a Dec 20, 2019, govt order capping an inquiry officer’s workload at 20 cases per calendar year, a limit the officer was responsible for enforcing. The commission recommended that the Punjab chief secretary compile quarterly or annual data on inquiries to ensure compliance with the 20-case limit.
The Punjab State Information Commission has ruled that an inquiry officer appointed by the state govt falls within the definition of a “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.
The case stems from an RTI application filed by a Chandigarh resident seeking data on the number of inquiries assigned, pending and completed by the retired ADJ between Jan 2020 and June 2023. The personnel department initially denied the information, suggesting the applicant approach the individual departments that commissioned the inquiries.
The retired ADJ argued he was not a public authority and had no statutory obligation under Section 4 to maintain records. He said original files and reports were returned to departments upon completion, and that he was provided no secretarial assistance.
The commission observed that inquiry officers handling civil or corruption cases must maintain records systematically. Without records, an officer cannot prove that files were handed over or justify remuneration claims.
The bench framed three key issues, focusing on whether an inquiry officer falls under Section 2(h)(d)(i) of RTI Act as a body “owned, controlled, or substantially financed” by the govt. Examining the scope of govt oversight, compliance guidelines and administrative direction, the bench concluded inquiry officers are “controlled” by the state.
The commission said the personnel department panelled the officer and highlighted a Dec 20, 2019, govt order capping an inquiry officer’s workload at 20 cases per calendar year, a limit the officer was responsible for enforcing. The commission recommended that the Punjab chief secretary compile quarterly or annual data on inquiries to ensure compliance with the 20-case limit.
.JPG)
.JPG)
