Names of members of ICAI against whom complaints are pending cannot be disclosed u/s 8(1)(j) - no time limit prescribed for disposal of complaints under the CA Act, 1949 - the number of pending cases and stage at which they are pending to be disclosed
27 Aug, 2013ORDER
Facts of the case:
1. The Appellant filed his RTI application dated 10.07.2012 with the CPIO, ICAI, New Delhi seeking following information in respect of receipt and disposal of complaints by ICAI:
1. Number of complaints received and admitted against members of ICAI during 1409 to 31312 along with the names of members;
2. Time limit of disposal of such complaints;
3. Number of complaints pending as on 31312 along with the date on which such complaints were admitted and the name of the authority with whom it is pending.
2. The CPIO, vide her letter dated 08.08.2012, furnished pointwise reply to the Appellant. As for point no.1, the CPIO informed the Appellant that during 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2012 total 584 complaints have been registered. She, however, declined the disclosure of names of individual members against whom cases are registered and under process. As for point No. 2, she stated that there is no time limit prescribed for disposal of such complaints under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 and Rules, Regulations there under. As for point no. 3, she gave the numbers of complaints (i.e. 379) which were under process as on 31.03.2012, while also informing the Appellant that no such data base of dates of registration of individual complaints and the authority under which they are lying is being maintained.
3. The Appellant, being dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, filed his first appeal before the Appellate Authority on 22.06.2012 which the Appellate Authority decided vide his order dated 02.07.2012. The Appellate Authority, in his order, recorded that “the disclosure of the names of the members against whom complaint are pending or under investigation would tarnish their image and reputation in the eye of general public as the proceedings have not attain finality and would also amount to invasion of privacy hence exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. and 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; of the Right to Information Act, 2005” As regards nonprovision of years wise break up of complaints, the Appellate Authority noted that the Appellant had not sought the same in his original RTI application. He accordingly upheld the reply/information given by the CPIO.
4. The Appellant, thereafter, being aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority, filed the present appeal before the Commission.
Decision:
5. During the hearing, the Appellant’s RTI queries were discussed as given below:
Point No. 1: 7. The Appellant in this point wanted to know the numbers of complaints received and admitted against members of ICAI during 1409 to 31312 along with the names of members. The Respondents state that they have provided the number of complaints registered during the said period to the Appellant. However, they have withheld the names of members against whom complaint are pending or under investigation. It is their submission that the disclosure of the names of said members at this stage would besmirch their reputation in public and would also cause unwarranted invasion of their privacy. They, in support, cite the judgment of High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Rajesh Chadda Vs ICAI wherein the Court had, interalia, made following observation on the current issue:
“…we are unable to accept that during the pendency of the proceeding which are yet to be finalized, the name of a professional can be put on the website tarnishing his image….…if the Institute is permitted to put the name of the appellant on website then his reputation would be tarnished and he may suffer irreparable loss…”
They, however, mention that after the final decision, they put up complete details in the form of final judgment on their website.
6. Considering the submissions above, the Commission concurs with the decision of the Appellate Authority that the names of members against whom complaints are pending or under investigation cannot be disclosed to the Appellant at this stage. They fall under the exemption category of section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act. Therefore, there shall be no disclosure obligation on the Respondents with regard to this information.
Point No. 2:
7. The Appellant in this point wanted to know the time limit within which such complaints are disposed of.
8. The Commission notes that the CPIO has already informed the Appellant that there is no time limit prescribed for disposal of such complaints under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 and Rules, Regulations there under and that each complaint is processed and decided based on the individual facts/evidence. In view of this categorical reply, no further disclosure is needed with regard to this point.
Point No. 3:
9. In this point the Appellant wanted to know the numbers of complaints pending as on 31312 along with the date on which such complaints were admitted and the name of the authority with whom it is pending. The Respondents provided to the Appellant the numbers of such complaints. They, however, expressed their inability to provide the details of individual complaints and the authority with whom they are pending on the ground that no such data base is being maintained by them.
10. The Respondents, during the hearing, submit that the ICAI is a regulatory body of Chartered Accountants in India discharging quasi judicial function under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. They are also the Disciplinary Authority for the matters related to the complaints regarding misconduct against erring members. While explaining the procedure, as prescribed by the Chartered Accountants, Act 1949 as amended by the Chartered Accountant (Amendment) Act, 2006, they state that on receipt of any information or complaint in the prescribed form along with the prescribed fee, after following the due procedure prescribed by the said Act, the complaint along with all the relevant papers is considered by the Director (Discipline), who arrives at a prima facie opinion on the occurrence of the alleged misconduct. Wherever, the Director (Discipline) is of the prima facie opinion that a member is not guilty or is guilty of any professional or other misconduct falling under First Schedule (of the Act), the said opinion is placed before the Board of Discipline for consideration. Wherever, the Director (Discipline) is of the prima facie opinion that the member is guilty of any professional Misconduct falling under Second Schedule to the Act or both the schedules, the said opinion is placed before the Disciplinary Committee for consideration. The Board of Discipline / Disciplinary Committee, as the case may be, then examines the matter and if it agrees with the prima facie opinion of the Director (Discipline) that member is prima facie guilty of any professional or other misconduct, the Board of Discipline/ Disciplinary Committee, as the case may be, may proceed further under Chapter IV or V of the Chartered Accountants (Procedure of Investigations of Professional or Other Misconduct and conduct of cases) Rules, 2007. If the Board of Discipline agrees with the opinion of the Director (Discipline) that the member concerned is not guilty, it shall pass orders for closure of the case at this stage itself. If the Board of Discipline/ Disciplinary Committee, as the case may be, disagrees with the opinion of the Director Discipline, in any case it shall either close the matter or advise the Director to further investigate the matter. After following the due procedure as prescribed by the Rules, the Board of Discipline/ Disciplinary Committee, as the case may be, after consideration of the written representations and the oral submissions of the parties if any, arrives at a Finding / Report on whether the member concerned is guilty or not and thereafter if the member concerned is found to be guilty, the Board of Discipline/ Disciplinary Committee, as the case may be, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the member concerned pass an order against the member for award of punishment, as prescribed by the Act.
11. The Respondents thus submit that the complaints filed before them are dealt with at different levels (viz., Director (Discipline), Board of Discipline and Disciplinary Committee) and that only after the final decision is made they place the information (in the form of final judgment) on the website of the public authority. They, however, at this stage, agree to provide to the Appellant latest information about the number of pending cases and the stages [i.e. Director (Discipline); Board of Discipline and Disciplinary Committee] at which they are pending.
12. The Commission accordingly directs the Respondents to provide the above information (para 13) to the Appellant within 4 weeks of receipt of this order.
(Sushma Singh)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Satish Jadon v. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India in Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/003420 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/003510