Central Information Commission
Hemant R Shah vs Institute Of Chartered Accoutant Of ... on 20 May, 2021
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: - CIC/ICAOI/A/2019/131919+ 131911
In the matter of:
Hemant R Shah
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer,
Institute Of Chartered Accountant of India,
ICAI Bhawan, Indraprastha Marg,
New Delhi 110 002
... Respondent
File No. 131919 131911 RTI application filed on : 09/01/2019 09/01/2019 CPIO replied on : 31/01/2019 14/02/2019 First appeal filed on : 05/03/2019 24/02/2019 First Appellate Authority order : 15/04/2019 27/03/2019 Second Appeal Filed on : 30/06/2019 30/06/2019 Date of Hearing : 19/05/2021 19/05/2021 Date of Decision : 19/05/2021 19/05/2021 The following were present: Appellant: Not present
Respondent: Dr. Shivam Kumar, CPIO, heard over phone Information Sought in File No. CIC/ICAOI/A/2019/131919 The appellant has sought the following information pertaining to Mr. Hemant N Shah, with reference to the letter no. PR/259/2017-D/255/2017 dated 28th Dec, 2017:
1. Provide the copy of speaking judgement.1
2. Provide reasons derived by the Board for denying the non-establishment of the allegations.
3. Provide the copy of the prime facie opinion of the Director along with its enclosures.
4. And other related information.
Information Sought in File No. CIC/ICAOI/A/2019/131911 The appellant has sought the following information with reference to the letter no. PR/258/2017-DD/254/2017 dated 28th Dec, 2017:
1. Provide the copy of speaking judgement.
2. Provide reasons derived by the Board for denying the non-establishment of the allegations.
3. Provide the copy of the prime facie opinion of the Director along with its enclosures.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant in his recent submissions had stated that the matter may be remanded back to the CPIO as the speaking order was not provided to him.
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was given to the appellant vide the letter dated 13.03.2019. He also informed that the available information i.e. a copy of the final decision of the Disciplinary Committee to whom the appellant had addressed the complaint, was given to the appellant and since there is no other speaking order available with them, the same cannot be provided. He explained that the appellant was aggrieved with the final decision.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the appellant is aggrieved as a copy of the speaking order by virtue of which the persons named in the complaint were found not guilty was not provided to him. However, the CPIO explained that there is no speaking order available with them and whatever information was available, the same was supplied to the appellant. The Commission accepts the submissions of the CPIO and therefore no further relief can be given to the appellant in both the cases.2
Decision:
In view of the above, the Commission upholds the submissions of the CPIO and does not find any scope for further intervention in the matters.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सच
ू ना आयु त)
Authenticated true copy
(अभ माणत स यापत त)
A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 /
दनांक / Date
3