Srinivasan N vs Institute Of Actuaries Of India on 28 January, 2022

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Srinivasan N vs Institute Of Actuaries Of India on 28 January, 2022

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 17.01.2019 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through the RTI application dated 30.07.2018 and first appeal dated 27.09.2018:-

(i) Minutes of the meeting and all questions that were put for discussion, voted on and orders passed in the disciplinary committee's meeting held on 11th October 2013.

(ii) Minutes of the meeting and all questions that were put for discussion, voted on and orders passed in the disciplinary committee meeting held on 8th November 2013.

Page 1 of 6

(iii) Minutes of the meeting and all questions that were put for discussion, voted on and order passed in the disciplinary committee meeting held on 2nd December 2013.

(iv) Minutes of the meeting and all questions that were put for discussion, voted on and orders passed in the disciplinary committee meeting held on 18th January 2014.

(v) Minutes of the meeting and all questions that were put for discussion, voted on and orders passed in the disciplinary committee meeting held on 18th December 2015.

(vi) Minutes of the meeting and all questions that were put for discussion, voted on and orders passed in the disciplinary committee meeting held on 26th March 2016.

(vii) Minutes of the meeting and all questions that were put for discussion, voted on and orders passed in the disciplinary committee meeting held on 7th May 2016.

(viii) Minutes of the meeting of the council of the Institute of Actuaries of India meeting held on 9th December 2017, and all questions that were put for discussion in front of the Council on this day, and all the decisions and orders taken on this day.

(ix) Minutes of the meeting of the council of the Institute of Actuaries of India held on 4th February 2017, and all the decisions and orders taken on this day, and mails sent from the council to the disciplinary committee regarding this complaint no. PD/C/2/2012-13.

(x) All letters sent from the disciplinary committee to the council in this complaint no. Complaint PD/C/2/2012-13 from August 2013 till date.

(xi) All letters sent from the council to the disciplinary committee this complaint no.

Complaint PD/C/2/2012-13 from August 2013 till date.

Page 2 of 6

(xii) All letters sent from the Council to the Prosecution Director in this complaint no: Complaint PD/C/2/2012-13 from August 2013 till date.

(xiii) Documentary legal opinion provided by Mr. Partha Bannerjee, Advocate to the disciplinary committee on the interpretation of the word "De-novo". Arising from the order dated 25th June 2015 by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in WP (L) No. 73/2014.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 30.07.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Institute of Actuaries of India, Navi Mumbai, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 31.08.2018 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 27.09.2018. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 25.10.2018 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 17.01.2019 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 17.01.2019 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 31.08.2018 and the same is reproduced as under :-

"The minutes of the meetings of the council and of its committees are internal and for circulation among members of the Council/Committees. However, policy decisions affecting the members, student and public at large are published from time to time, in the form of announcement and/or press releases."

The FAA vide order dated 25.10.2018 stated that the information sought by the appellant was exempted under Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act as the proceedings in the Page 3 of 6 disciplinary case in Complaint No. PD/C/2/2012-13 had not reached a logical conclusion.

5. The appellant's representative Shri Shiv Kumar, Advocate and on behalf of the respondent Shri Yogesh Pandey, CPIO, Institute of Actuaries of India, Mumbai attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The representative of the appellant inter alia submitted that minutes of meetings of public authorities should have been disclosed under Section 4 of RTI Act. He stated that departmental action was initiated against him and information sought was very much related to his departmental action. He further submitted that he sought copies of minutes of the meetings and all questions that were put for discussion, voted on and order passed in the disciplinary committee meetings held on various dates. It was argued that since the law itself allowed the right to attend these proceedings, therefore, the minutes of the meetings should have also been disclosed. He contended that the respondent had claimed exemption under section 8 (1)(h) of the RTI Act. However, they failed to explain as to how disclosure of the information sought would impede the process of investigation. He also informed that Disciplinary Committee had already completed its proceedings and filed its report. Therefore, impeding the process of investigation would not arise. He prayed that disclosure of information sought would help him to defend his case and get justice.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had already provided disciplinary report along with the annexures to the appellant. The appellant was also called for personal hearing. The disclosure of the information i.e., minutes of the meetings, sought by the appellant might have affected the privacy of the member of the Committee. Moreover, they stated that disciplinary proceeding in the appellant's case (complaint no. PD/C/2/2012-13) had not reached to a logical conclusion therefore they claimed exemption under section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that reply given by the respondent was Page 4 of 6 evasive. It may not be out of place to mention that the principles of natural justice demand that all relevant documents which are relied upon in the disciplinary proceedings, even if it is opinion, the same may be provided to the charged official. In the present case, if the aforesaid meetings, the case of the appellant i.e., Mr. Srinivasan N was discussed, then the proceedings of the meeting should have been given to him after redacting third party information. Wherever the charged officer makes a request for document then it is the duty of the enquiring authority or disciplinary authority to provide all documents. In case they deny any document, they should pass reasoned order. As regards the exemption under section 8 (1)(h) of the RTI Act was concerned, it was not the investigation done by the Police or CBI. The departmental enquiry is under process cannot be a ground for claiming exemption under section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act. The Commission is of the view that in accordance with the principle of natural justice all the documents/records which were relied upon by the respondent to initiate the departmental action against the appellant may be provided to him subject to redacting of the third party information, within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. With the above observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेशचं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) दनांक/Date: 27.01.2022 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत ) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 5 of 6 Addresses of the parties:

CPIO:

YOGESH PANDIT, INSTITUTE OF ACTUARIES OF INDIA UNIT NO F-206, 2ND FLOOR, F WING, TOWER 2, SEAWOODS GRAND CENTRAL, PLOT NO R1-, SECTOR 40, SEAWOODS, NEAR SEAWOODS RAILWAY STATION, NAVI MUMBAI - 400 706 FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, INSTITUTE OF ACTUARIES OF INDIA, UNIT NO F-206, 2ND FLOOR, F WING, TOWER 2, SEAWOODS GRAND CENTRAL, PLOT NO R1, SECTOR 40, SEAWOODS, NEAR SEAWOODS RAILWAY STATION, NAVI MUMBAI - 400 706 SH. SRINIVASAN N Page 6 of 6

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission