RTI ACT, 2005 IS WORKING FOR PROTECTION OF THE WORK DONE IN GOOD FAITH, WHERE IN IT IS NECESSARY FOR ALL TO WORK IN THE GOOD FAITH AND TO HAVE GOOD GOVERNANCE, FAILING WHICH COMMISSION MAY BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR PENAL ACTION AGAINST THE PIO AND THE FAA, AS THE CASE MAY BE.

Section 21 of the RTI Act provides that no suit, protection or other legal proceeding shall lie against any person for any thing which is in good faith done or intended to be done under the Act or any rule made there under. A public information officer should, however, note that it would be his responsibility to prove that his action was in good faith. Keeping in view the above description made by Section 21 of the RTI Act 2005 , it is very clear that public information officer is responsible to do his work and conduct in the good faith of the demand under public utility but there is no review of the case file issued by the FAA cum Special Secretary Department of Finance vide his number, dated 17-12-2024 related to the correspondence made by the Chief Minister office vide number dated 23-4-22and 20-7-2022 , even though the case file if related to the HPPWD the concerned public information officer was responsible to further refer said case to HPPWD under section 6(3) of the RTI act, 2005 or the public information officer must be held responsible to issue reply of his office asked as by the Chief Minister office and replied by the Department of Finance however in contrary the FAA cum Special Secretary Finance has informed that his office has not received said correspondence made , even though and more over, appellant have again and again submitted the correspondence before the Department of Finance for under rules obligations and reply of the concerned letters submitted for the decision making of penalty against an employee declared nullity by the various OAs and also denied by the Finance department memo number, Fin -C-B(7) -9/78-lll dated 28-7-1984 but it is regretted for the delete made by HP Finance even case file also kept pending by the State Information Commission again and again submitted for the clearness and correctness of the such illegal penalty enforced by the disciplinary authority cum Superintending Engineer 10 th circle HPPWD Bilaspur without taking cognisance of the law and rules explained by the advisory department of Finance and personnel and (AR) however there is no vision under law code manual prefixed by the Constitution of India in this behalf, even pay commission report issued on 3-1-2022 is very clear on the matter however, the public information officer department of Finance (pay revision) failed to supply the copy of required documentary evidences in favor of the appellant for which section 21of the RTI act allowing the protection for work done in the good faith then how it is possible to bring transparency and accountability when there is no good faith and there would be no good governance for which SIC too responsible where pending appeals are kept pending by the SIC since long even again and again submitted for the legal proceeding as such delay and dereliction of duty by PIO working in the department of Finance is proof and evidence. Keeping in view the above expression made by Section 21 of the RTI act 2O05 it is clear that there is no good governance if there is no good faith for which the penalty has been suggested by the RTI act 2005 but SIC and CIC ignoring the facts placed before the office and authority and taking no cognisance of the good faith and the required good governance