Central Information Commission
Ajay Kumar Gupta vs Institute Of Companies Secretaries Of ... on 11 February, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/ICSOI/A/2024/652069
Shri Ajay Kumar Gupta ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Institute of Companies Secretaries of India ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 04.02.2025
Date of Decision : 06.02.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 28.09.2024
PIO replied on : 25.10.2024
First Appeal filed on : 25.10.2024
First Appellate Order on : 21.11.2024
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 22.11.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.09.2024 seeking information on the following points:-
"This pertains to the office of the CPIO, Disciplinary Directorate, the Institute of Company Secretaries of India, ICSI House, 22, Institutional Area, Lodi Road, New Delhi 110003. This further pertains to the complaint of the applicant against Ms. Sheetal Sharma under unique reference number DC/960/2023 as per the enclosed interim order dated 19.09.2024. The following information is sought as per records:
1. Please provide copy of the prima facie opinion dated 25.07.2024 of the Director (Discipline) as per records in the matter DC/960/2023
2. Since the interim order clearly records that the same was formed after further investigation, please provide copy of all documents annexed in the file that constitutes such further investigation as carried out by the Director (Discipline)
3. Please provide details on whether the Respondent CS Sheetal Sharma was provided a hearing in the subject complaint as per records."
The CPIO vide letter dated 25.10.2024 replied as under:-
Point No. 1 & 2:-The complaint is being dealt in accordance with the provision of the Company Secretaries Act, 1980 (the Act), read with the Company Secretaries (Procedure of Investigations of Professional and Other Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007(the Rules).Page 1 of 4
The matter is under adjudication before BOD.
The information sought is exempted Section 8 (1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005 Point No. 3:-Copy of Interim order of the Board of Discipline issued on 19 th September, 2024 has been sent to the parties.
Notice to the parties for appearance before the Board of Discipline for hearing will be issued for the date as may be fixed by the Presiding Officer in the matter."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.10.2024. The FAA vide order dated 21.11.2024 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 03.02.2025 has been received from CPIO, ICSI reiterating the aforementioned facts of the case. Moreover, the Respondent has also specifically discussed the procedure for processing and investigation of complaints of professional or any other misconduct of members of the Institute by the Disciplinary Directorate stating that such disciplinary proceedings are governed by the Section 38A of the Company Secretaries (Procedure of Investigations of Professional and Other Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007. The written submission further reveals the following:
8. At this stage the matter is under consideration of the Board of Discipline of the Institute. The Board of Discipline considered the prima-facie opinion dated 25th July, 2024 and vide order issued dated 19th September, 2024 felt that before taking decision on prima-facie opinion of the Director (Discipline) it is desirable to hear the parties. It may be mentioned that the Board of Discipline of the Institute before taking any opinion on the prima-facie of the Director (Discipline) has decided to call upon the parties to appear before the Board of Discipline on 8th January, 2025. The matter was partly heard by the Board of Discipline on 8th January, 2025. The Board of Discipline heard the Complainant, the Respondent in the matter is yet to be heard. Interim order issued on 18th January, 2025 has also been shared with the parties.
9. It is submitted that Prima facie opinion (after further investigation) in the disciplinary case DC/960/2023 is placed before Board of Discipline under Section 21 of the Company Secretaries Act, 1980 (the Act), read with Rule 3 of the Company Secretaries (Procedure of Investigations of Professional and Other Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007 (the Rules). Copy of Interim order of the Board of Discipline has already been sent to the parties. .......................
11. In the instant matter, the Board of Discipline is yet to decide on the prima facie opinion of the Director (Discipline). The matter is still sub-judice before the Board of Discipline. At this stage the Rules do not provide for delivering the copy of the prima facie opinion. Hence, the information sought relation to the prima-facie opinion of the Director (Discipline) is exempted under Section 8(1)(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.Page 2 of 4
12. It would not be out of place to mention that the communications with the parties in Disciplinary Case No. DC/960/2023 are being made in accordance with the provisions of the Company Secretary Act, 1980 read with the Company Secretaries (Procedure of Investigations of Professional and Other Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Present with Shri Ativ Gupta - Advocate Respondent: Ms. Banu Dandona - CPIO/Director, Mr. Gaurav Tandon - DD, Law, Mr. R B N Tiwari - AD, Law, Mr. Vinay Kumar - Sr. Executive were present during hearing.
The Appellant stated that information sought by him has been denied to him citing the Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, without justifying the same. Respondent stated that information from available records have been duly furnished to the Appellant, in terms of the RTI Act vide the aforementioned written submission. The Respondent has also submitted a copy of the interim order dated 08.01.2025, softcopy whereof had been duly sent to the Appellant vide email dated 20.01.2025. It reveals that the matter is pending and the Disciplinary Directorate has been advised to call the Respondent pursuant to Section 21 C of the Company Secretaries Act, 1980 to appear before the Board of Discipline on the next date of hearing. The Respondent has specified that the Board of Discipline is yet to decide on the prima facie opinion of the Director (Discipline).
Decision:
Perusal of records of the case reveals that the information which is available and existing on record with the public authority and defined as information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, has been duly provided to the Appellant by the Respondent. The queries raised by the Appellant have been addressed and the substantive matter is pending decision, the response sent by the Respondent and the written submission dated 03.02.2025 is found satisfactory. The Respondent is directed to send another copy of the written submission dated 03.02.2025 with complete annexures, to the Appellant, through speed post, within two weeks of receipt of this order and submit a compliance report in this regard before the Commission within one week thereafter. Since the response of the PIO is found appropriate and well within the precincts of the RTI Act, no further intervention is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) Page 3 of 4 011-26186535 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)