Central Information Commission
Chetan Padaki vs Institute Of Chartered Accoutant Of ... on 26 February, 2020
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
Decision no.: CIC/ICAOI/A/2018/636508/02988
File no.: CIC/ICAOI/A/2018/636508
In the matter of:
Chetan Padaki
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI)
ICAI Bhawan, Indraprastha Marg,
New Delhi - 110 002
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 06/09/2018 CPIO replied on : 03/10/2018 First appeal filed on : 12/10/2018 First Appellate Authority order : 12/11/2018 Second Appeal dated : 05/12/2018 Date of Hearing : 25/02/2020 Date of Decision : 25/02/2020 The following were present: Appellant: Present over VC
Respondent: Shri Dinesh Kumar Mishra, Assistant Secretary and CPIO, present in person alongwith Smt. Seema Gerotra, Joint Director and FAA Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the certified copies of the reply given by the Firm- M.D. Pise & Associates, Chartered Accountants having MEF09858, FRN 007919S UCN 162786 in the MEF from 2017-18 and 2018-19 for the question- whether any disciplinary proceeding is pending in the records of the Institute against Partner(s)/ any paid Chartered Accountant of the Firm.1
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO has denied the information u/s 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that the sought for information was denied to him u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act which is not correct. He further submitted that the said information is not personal information because the said information is not maintained by ICAI alone. The information sought is the information to be supplied to various organisations on the request of the different organisations. He further submitted that the claim of the CPIO and the First Appellate Authority is not tenable, as the ICAI itself is parting with information to different organisations. Furthermore, he submitted that the ICAI is publishing the Disciplinary case against any member in the Resume of candidates for the Regional & Central Council elections and sending it to voters. If it is personal information, the said information might not have been published and sent to all voters, for the Regional & Central Council elections ICAI elections. He pointed out that these two facts are more than sufficient to state that information sought is crucial and of larger public interest and not to be retained in the four walls of the ICAI to call it as personal information. ICAI a partner in nation building discloses such information to the Voters/organisations/authorities etc. This is only because, the disciplinary information is of larger public interest and the very purpose of selection of the Auditor/Candidate of election has to be based after disclosing the disciplinary action against the member.
He further relied on the case of Bhagwan Chand Saxena vs Export Inspection Council of India, Ministry of Commerce, where the Commission had held that- when a candidate submits his application for appointment to a post under a public authority, the same becomes a public document and he cannot object to the disclosure on the ground of invasion of privacy. Every citizen has the right to know whether the candidate fulfils the criteria for the post, which could be checked from the application/bio-data. He pressed for the copies of the bio data submitted. He further clarified that MEF is nothing but Bio data of the firm, which will be sent to organisations (who seek from ICAI) for the appointment as Auditors. Every member has the right to know whether the member fulfils the criteria for the post, which could be checked from the application/ bio-data. Moreover, the information sought is only one part of the form and not the complete form, which ICAI, itself is publishing in its Election Candidates List.
During the hearing, he also contended that if the sought for information was shared with anyone, then it should be disclosed to him too. He further summed up stating that in case the same was not given to anyone, he would be satisfied with the present reply.2
File no.: CIC/ICAOI/A/2018/636508 Per contra, the CPIO submitted that the personal information of the third parties cannot be disclosed being exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. He further submitted that the list of members and list of voters are published every year but in none of the lists, the details relating to status of disciplinary cases are mentioned. The respondent also stated that the disciplinary proceedings are still going on and thus till finalization, the information cannot be shared.
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, it is noted that the appellant's claim of larger public interest is not established. Moreover, pendency of disciplinary proceedings in the records of the Institute against Partner(s)/ any paid Chartered Accountant of the Firm prima facie constitutes personal information of third parties and hence cannot be given. Further the proceedings are still going on and thus, on the basis of all these averments, the respondent's stand of inability to provide information sought is justified. Decision:
In view of the submissions of the CPIO, the Commission finds no scope for any intervention in the matter. The Commission accordingly upholds the submissions of the CPIO. No further action lies.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 3