Central Information Commission
Vikash Jaitly vs Department Of Financial Services on 25 July, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/DOFSR/A/2024/105102
Vikash Jaitly ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
1. Department of Financial Services,
New Delhi
2. Department of Personnel & Training,
New Delhi ... ितवादीगण/Respondent(s)
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 18.10.2023 FA : 17.11.2023 SA : 14.02.2024
CPIO : 14.11.2023 FAO : 15.12.2023 Hearing : 01.05.2025
Date of Decision: 24.07.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.10.2023 seeking information on the following points:
(i) "Copy of that final note sheet of the file no. 8/25/2018-DRT in which the reply dated 10.12.2020 for SCN was repudiated/rejected by DFS (DRT) having ground of rejection.
(ii) Whether DRT Section has received some observations of CVC in the month of November-December, 2022 and DRT Section has furnished its reply. If the reply Page 1 of 14 of this information as sought is in yes, a copy each of such observation of CVC alongwith specific reply of DRT Section with forwarding letters, If any as available in the aforesaid file be provided.
(iii) Whether the draft charge sheet against me has been modified at any stage. If the answer is yes, a copy of Initial draft charge sheet as well as modified charge-
sheet alongwith note-sheet of said file be provided."
2. The CPIO, Department of Financial Services, replied vide letter dated 14.11.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"I am to refer to your RTI application dated 18.10.2023 and you are informed that information as defined under Section 2 (f) of RTI Act is 'any material in any form including records, documents, memos, emails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any pvt Body which can be accessed by a Public Authority under any other law for the time being in force.' The CPIO is not required to compile/collate/create/ interpret information.
Keeping in view the definition of information as mentioned above, the information sought by you vide S.No. (ii) and (iii) of your application are not specific and also clarificatory in nature. It is also informed that S. No. 4(i) of your application has been transferred to DoPT on 23rd October, 2023 under Section 6(3) of RTI Act."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.11.2023 stating as under:
"The applicant has sought information under RTI Act vide application dated 18.10.2023. However, despite quoting relevant judgments of Central Information Commission in my RTI Application, which says information sought can't be denied, the concerned CPIO (Sh. Subhash Chandra Amin, Under Secretary) vide his reply dated14.11.2023 has provided incorrect, false and misleading information, which attracts Section 20 (Penalties) of The RTI Act. 2005.Page 2 of 14
2. The information as sought are notings and correspondence portion of file no. 8/25/2018-DRT and are completely available in aforesaid file no. as maintained partly in physical and electronic mode in DFS and hence covered under Section 2(f) of RTI Act. It need not required to be compiled /collate/created by CPIO. Furthermore, he also transferred the said RTI application to DoPT for sl. 4(i), which is misleading.
2. It is humbly requested to direct CPIO to provide:-
(i) Note-sheet of file no. 8/25/2018-DRT where the reply dated 10.12.2020 for SCN was repudiated.
(ii) Complete set of CVC OM dated 10.11.2022 and reply as furnished vide id note no. 8/5/2018-DRT dated 3.5.2023 as available in aforesaid file.
(iii) Draft charge-sheet as framed by DRT Section for sending CVC and modified draft charge-sheet after advice dated 26.6.2023 of CVC."
Another reply dated 12.12.2023 of the CPIO, DFS is also placed on record making a reference to the instant RTI Application stating as under:
"I am to refer to your RTI application dated 22.11.2023 which was partially transferred by the answering CPIO to DoP&T on 23rd October, 2023 in respect of S. No.
(i) of your RTI application and now the same has been transferred back to DRT Division by DoP&T. Vide S. No. 4(i) of your RTI application dated 18th October, 2023, you have sought a copy of that final note sheet of the file no. 8/25/2018-DRT in which the reply dated 10.12.2020 for SCN was repudiated/rejected by DFS (DRT) having ground of rejection.
It is informed to you that DoP&T has initiated disciplinary action against you and issued chargesheet vide Memorandum dated 11th October, 2023, a copy of the same has been endorsed to this Office. DRT Section, DFS has already sent a complete set of authenticated documents to the Under Secretary (ADV-I/D), DoP&T, North Block along with all enclosures as mentioned in DoP&T Office Memorandum number 142/20/2017- AVD.I/D dated 6th September, 2023. The information/documents sought by you vide S. No. Page 3 of 14 4(i) of RTI application dated 18th October, 2023 are inclusive of information/documents provided by DRT Section, DFS to DoP&T. CPIO is not having further details on the action being taken by DoP&T including status of disciplinary action against you and therefore, CPIO, DRT Section, DFS cannot provide the information/documents which have already become part of Disciplinary Action initiated by DoP&T. Keeping in view of the facts mentioned above, Sr. No. 4(i) of your RTI application dated 18th October, 2023 is once again transferred to DoPT under Section 6(3) of RTI Act."
The FAA vide order dated 15.12.2023 upheld the reply of 14.11.2023 given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 14.02.2024 narrating the facts stated above and adding that:
"5. On 15.12.2023, the applicant has received another misleading reply dated 12.12.2023 (Annexure E) of said CPIO (Sh. Subhash Chandra Amin), in which he referred the RTI application dated 22.11.2023 of applicant, (Whereas the applicant has not made any RTI application dated 22.11.2023 but his application is of dt. 18.10.2023), requesting DOP&T again in respect of S. No. 4(i) of RTI application dated 18.10.2023 i.e. for providing note sheet and correspondence portion of file no. 8/25/2018-DRT of Department of Financial Service.
6. On 15.1.2024, I have received another deceptive reply dated 12.1.2024 (Annexure F) from the said CPIO (Sh. Subhash Chandra Amin) in which he has referred RTI Application dated 19.12.2023 of applicant (Whereas the applicant has filed the RTI application dated 18.10.2023) informing that no information has been sought by the applicant as the annexure found with RTI application is a copy of letter issued to the applicant by the CPIO.
7. It may be pertinent to mention here that the said CPIO has again not only denied the information as sought by the applicant vide RTI application dated 18.10.2023, but Page 4 of 14 diverted the attention to the alleged annexures found with RTI application whereas the applicant has not filed any annexure in his RTI Application dated 18.10.2023.
8. Since the CPIO and 1st appellate authority has disposed the RTI application dated 18.10.2023 in a very casual manner as evident from the replies received and also have willfully & deliberately not provided the information sought which is note-sheet & correspondence portion of file no. 8/25/2018-DRT (as available in the Department of Financial Services) even after quoting the relevant decisions of Hon'ble CIC and penalty provision under RTI Act, the applicant is forced to file the aforesaid 2nd appeal with the request to direct CPIO/DFS to provide the information sought. Denial of information on flimsy ground is against the spirit of RTI Act. It is also requested to impose maximum penalty for their delaying tactics as evident above and not following the ratio-decidendi of the three landmark decisions of apex authority i.e. Central Information Commission as referred by the applicant in his RTI application dated 18.10.2023 and also in 1st appeal dated 17.11.2023.
9. The background statement is as under.
The applicant was on deputation to the post of Recovery Officer in Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), which functions under DRT Section of Department of Financial Services, for the period 1.11.2017 to 31.10.2020.
In discharge of duties, the applicant had put a property of defaulter on sale for which a Single bid of Rs. 2.20 Crore was received. Before confirming the sale, the owner of property disclosed before the DRT Forum that the market value of the property is of Rs. 3.00 Crore and also produced a better buyer, who was ready to purchase the same for Rs. 3.00 Crore and he also got deposited Rs. 75 Lakh from the better buyer to show his bonafide intention & asked time for rest amount.
In these circumstances, the applicant applied the judicial discretion and rejected the inadequate bid vide speaking order dated 15.10.2019 and also ordered for a fresh auction with revised reserve price of Rs. 2.51 Crore, below which no one can bid.
Page 5 of 14However the single bidder does not want to participate in an actual E-auction having competitors, hence in connivance with Bank officials and others, got the said property forcefully transferred in his name for Rs. 2.20 Crore through the direct interference /orders of the then Hon'ble Chairperson, DRAT, Delhi thereby causing a loss of Rs. 80 Lakh to Govt. Exchequer. In the said case, as the applicant had ordered a fresh E-auction vide order dated 15.10.2019 against the wishes of higher authority, the Chairperson, DRAT taken the matter suo-moto to divert the attention of being criticized, hence vide order dated 21.9.2020, made a reference to DFS for taking suitable action against the applicant.
The DFS without verifying the facts of the case, rule position and powers given to a Recovery officer issued a show cause notice vide memo no. 8/25/2018-DRT dated 16.10.2020 to the applicant. The applicant has furnished a comprehensive reply dated 10.12.2020 to DFS quoting the correct rule position, precedence case in the matter as well as bonafide intension of applicant to save an apparent loss of Rs. 80 Lakh to the Govt. Exchequer for which he was duty bound. It was also quoted that the action taken by applicant was within his power and in view of protection given to a Recovery Officer under Section 33 of the RDB Act, i.e. no action /suite/proceedings can be initiated against a Recovery Officer for any action taken in good faith.
Finally, Department of Personnel and Training (DoP&T) has issued a charge sheet to the applicant vide memo dated 11.10.2023 with a copy to DFS which indicate that DFS has repudiated the comprehensive reply dated 10.12.2020 of applicant, which is adversely affecting the applicant.
The applicant has made an RTI application dated 18.10.2023 and drawn attention of CPIO on the decision dated 30.6.2016 of CIC of the case of Sh. N. K. Aggarwal Vs. the New Delhi Assurance Company Limited in appeal no. CIC/MP/A/016/000056 and 000532 in which the CIC has observed that the RTI applicant has right to know the reasons, as available in the records of the department, for repudiation of his claim as he is the one who has been adversely affected by the decision of the Department. Further attention was also drawn on the decision dated 06.06.2016 in appeal no. CIC/CC/A/2014/903022 in the Page 6 of 14 case of Lt. Col Shailendra Grover Vs. Brigadier & CPIO, in which the CIC has observed that once the stage of framing of charges is over, it would be open for the applicant to get copy of the note sheets of processing of his case as there is no apprehension that the disclosure would impede the process of investigation. Furthermore, the attention of CPIO was also invited to decision dated 30.6.2016 in appeal no. CIC/MP/A/2016/000133 in the case of Shri Nityanand Pramanik vs. LIC of India has observed that a charged employee as a right to obtain information pertaining to documents on the basis of which he is charged.
Since DFS has repudiated my claim / submission & justification as furnished vide reply dated 10.12.2020 and also denied due protection under RDB Act, hence the applicant has all the reasons to get information as available in the records of DFS, to prepare a defence statement against the charges as framed and conveyed through the chargesheet as issued by DoP&T. Therefore an online RTI application was made on 18.10.2023 to the concerned CPIO (Sh. Subhash Chandra Amin, Under Secretary) to furnish following documents:-
xxx It may be seen that the CPIO (Sh. Subhash Chandra Amin, Under Secretary) did not furnish the note sheets but transferred the application on 23.10.2023 to DOPT to furnish the note-sheet of the file which was under custody of DFS. It is strange to note that at the time of making application dated 18.10.2023 till the reply dated 14.11.2023 of aforesaid CPIO was issued, the file no. 8/25/2018-DRT was available / under custody of aforesaid CPIO, which may be verified by summoning of aforesaid file in the CIC. Hence forwarding of application to DoP&T under Rule 6(3) of RTI Act is an action of malafide intention to suppress the information and willingly misuse aforesaid rule of RTI Act.
Further, the CPIO vide reply dated 14.11.2023 referred Section 2(f) of RTI Act and denied the information sought vide para 4 (ii) and (iii) of RTI Application of applicant on the ground that CPIO is not required to compile/collate/create/interpret information. The aforesaid reply of said CPIO, taking shelter of Section 2(f) of RTI act, must be seen an Page 7 of 14 action with malafide intension for denying the available information in the file no 8/25/2018-DRT. It is pertinent to mention here that it has come to notice that he had himself dealt the aforesaid file under his signature and was well aware about the fact that an OM dated 10.11.2022 was received from CVC and a reply was furnished vide ID note no. 8/5/2018-DRT dated 3.5.2023 under the signature of Sh. Subhash Chandra Amin, Under Secretary. These facts may be verified from the aforesaid file no. 8/25/2018-DRT of DFS. Further, the information sought about modification in the draft chargesheet was also available in the aforesaid file.
While disposing appeal, it seems that the 1 appellate Authority has not gone through the information sought vide RTI application dated 18.10.2023 as well reply of CPIO and also records as available with the DRT Section. Further, he miserably failed to appreciate the landmark decisions of Hon'ble CIC which were duly quoted in the 1" appeal also..."
5. The Appellant was present during the hearing in person and on behalf of the Respondent, Dhananjay Kumar Singh, OSD & Rep. of CPIO, DFS along with Sushant Gupta, OSD and Bhupinder US & CPIO, DoPT attended the hearing in person.
6. The Appellant was heard on the lines of his written arguments placed on record vide his second appeal as stated above.
7. The Rep. of the CPIO, DFS relied on the written arguments tendered by their CPIO prior to the hearing stating as under:
"1. The appellant had filed RTI on 18.10.2023. CPIO replied the same on 14.11.2023. CPIO transferred point no. 4(i) to DoPT on 23.10.2023 and other two points were denied as they are clarificatory in nature.
2. The appellant has filed the first appeal on 17.11.2023. First appellate authority disposed of the appeal on 15.12.2023.
3. In para 5 of the 2nd appeal, the appellant alleged that he had received another reply dated 12.12.2023 on 15.12.2023 from CPIO and also alleged that he had not filed the RTI application dated 22.11.2023 of which the CPIO had filed reply. It is pertinent to Page 8 of 14 mention that the appellant had filed an RTI bearing no. DOFS/R/T/23/01714 dated 22.11.2023 with DoPT and the same has been transferred to this Department on 22.11.2023 and the same was disposed of on 12.12.2023. The contents of the said RTI were exactly the same as in the present RTI. RTI reply dated 12.12.2023 and RTI bearing No. DOFS/R/T/23/01714 dated 22.11.2023 is enclosed as Annexure 1.
4. In para 6 of the 2nd appeal, the appellant had further alleged that on 15.01.2024, he had received another reply dated 12.01.2024 in which RTI application dated 19.12.2023 was referred, however, he had filed RTI application dated 18.10.2023.
It is pertinent to mention that the appellant had filed RTI bearing nо. DOPT/R/P/23/02023 dated 19.12.2023 with DoPT and the same was transferred from DOPT to DFS vide No. DOSFR/R/T/23/01826 dated 19.12.2023. CPIO vide letter dated 12.01.2024 replied the said RTI. It was found in the said RTI that the appellant had not sought any information, only one annexure was enclosed which actually was the CPIO reply given in RTI no. DOFSR/R/T/23/01714 dated 22.11.2023. RTI application No. DOSFR/R/T/23/01826 dated 19.12.2023 and reply dated 12.01.2024 is enclosed as Annexure 2.
5. Further, it is submitted that CPIO had not diverted the attention, CPIO had just replied to the RTI applications as per the RTI Act which were received to him on RTI portal.
6. It is also pertinent to mention here that vide letter dated 19.12.2023 DOPT disposed of the RTI reply dated 19.12.2023 is enclosed as Annexure 3. RTI application bearing No. DOPT/R/P/23/2023 dated 14.12.2023 CPIO, DFS vide letter dated 01.01.2024 requested CPIO, DOPT to intimate the CPIO, DFS that sharing of information/document sought by the applicant at Sl. No. 4 (i) in RTI application dated 18.10.2023 would not impede the investigation against the applicant (this letter was sent in reference to the RTI application No. DOFSR/R/T/23/01826 dated 19.12.2023 which was transferred to DFS from DoPT). Letter dated 01.01.2024 is enclosed as Annexure 4.Page 9 of 14
7. Again, on 12.01.2024, a reminder letter sent to DoPT. On 02.02.2024, DOPT disposed of the RTI application under Section 8 (1)(h) of the RTI Act. Letter dated 12.01.2024 and DoPT letter dated 02.02.2024 is enclosed as Annexure 5 and Annexure 6 respectively.
Note: DoPT had initiated disciplinary proceedings against Sh. Vikash Jaitly, Ex- RO, DRT-3, Delhi and issued chargesheet vide memorandum dated 11.10.2023. A copy of the same has also been endorsed to this office. DRT Section, DFS has already set a complete set of authenticated documents to the US (ADV-I/D), DoPT, North Block along with all enclosures as mentioned in DoPT OM no. 142/20/2017-AVD-I/D dated 05.09.2023 for taking appropriate action.
Since, the CPIO, DFS has transferred the Sl. No. 4 (i) of the RTI application to DFS and DoPT in its reply dated 02.02.2024 addressed to the appellant accordingly decided the RTI Application."
Further, the CPIO, DoPT was also heard on the lines of his written submissions dated 01.05.2025 stating as under:
"2. In this regard, it is submitted that an online RTI application Reg. No. DOP&T/R/X/23/00390 dated 23.10.2023 (Annexure-1) received in this Division on 17.11.2023 through Shri Rupesh Kumar, CPIO, AVD-IA, DOP&T. The same was transferred to Department of Financial Service online on 22.11.2025 with the following remarks:-
"The custodian of the documents/information as sought by applicant under RTI Act is DFS. Hence, this RTI is returned to DFS for providing information directly to applicant."
3. This Department again received the same RTI application with Registration No. DOP&T/R/P/23/02023 dated 14.12.2023 (Annexure-II) vide which Department of Financial Services vide their Letter dated 12.12.2023 requested this Division for providing information in r/o S.No. 4(i) of his RTI Application dated 18.10.2023. In S. no. 4(i) of the RTI application, the applicant sought the copy of final notesheet of the file no. 8/25/2018- Page 10 of 14 DRT in which the reply dated 10.12.2020 for SCN was repudiated/rejected by DFS (DRT) having ground of rejection.
4. The reply of the said RTI Application was provided by the undersigned CPIO, vide Letter No. 142/07/2023-AVD.I/D dated 19.12.2023 (Annexure-III), as under:
"In respect of the information sought by you, it is informed that vide S.no. 4(i) of your RTI Application dated 18.10.2023, you have sought a copy of the final note sheet of the File No. 8/25/2018-DRT in which the reply dated 10.12.2020 for SCN was repudiated/rejected by DFS(DRT) having ground of rejection. The said note sheet has been prepared by DRT Section of Department of Financial Services and the original note sheet still lies with DRT Section therefore, the RTI Application is being forwarded to Department of Financial Services, under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005, for providing the information directly to you, if any."
5. This Department then received letter No. 14/05/2023-DRT dated 01.01.2024 (Annexure-IV), vide which, CPIO, Department of Financial Services, requested this Department to process the RTI Application dated 18.10.2023 of Shri Vikash Jaitly, as per RTI Act, 2005 and further, if CPIO, AVD-I/D, DoP&T is of the view that DRT Division may part with the information/document to the RTI applicant then it is requested to intimate CPIO, DRT Division, DFS that sharing of such information/document sought by the applicant vide S. no. 4(i) of his RTI application dated 18.10.2023 would not impede the process of investigation against the applicant viz. Shri Vikash Jaitly.
6. In response, this Department vide Letter No. 142/07/2023-AVD-CS(Gr.A) dated 02/05 February, 2024 (Annexure-V) informed Shri Vikash Jaitly as under:
"With regard to the information sought by you, it is informed that the same is denied under Section 8(1) (h) of Right to Information Act, 2005, as the information would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders."
7. A copy of the same was also endorsed to Department of Financial Service for information.
Page 11 of 148. Further, it is submitted that this Department has not received the authenticated copy of entire File No. 8/25/2018-DRT but only 17 pages of noting portion of that file starting from Note no. 10 to 22 and note No. 77 to 89. The entire file in original is in the custody of Department of Financial service. Hence, they may take decision on the remaining portion of file.
9. It is also pertinent to mention here that this Department did not receive any appeal from Shri Vikash Jaitly in this matter.
In this regard, it is submitted that disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 were initiated against Shri Vikash Jaitly, vide this Department's Memorandum No. 109/10/2023-AVD-CS(Gr.A) dated 11.10.2023 and the same have not reached a logical conclusion. The information related to the same has been conveyed to the applicant from time to time, as per the provisions of CCS(CCA) Rules.
10. Further kind attention is invited to the case of Shri Govind Jha vs. Army HQ in CIC/AT/A/2006/00039 dated 01.06.2006. In this case, the Commission has held that 'although the rules of disciplinary proceedings provide for disclosure of all documents and information which constitute the basis for the disciplinary action against an employee, yet such employees demand additional information pertaining to them through the RTI Act. These demands are mostly about disclosure of file-notings and other materials which otherwise would not be available to the employee under the Disciplinary Proceedings Rules. It has been the consistent position of the Commission that a disciplinary enquiry assumes the characteristics of an ongoing investigation and the material thereof cannot be disclosed under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.'..."
The Appellant interjected to address the common submission of both the CPIOs regarding multiple RTI Applications being filed by him to state that he has only filed one RTI Application with DFS.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the Appellant has specifically sought for the 'final note sheet of the file no. 8/25/2018-DRT in which the reply dated 10.12.2020 was Page 12 of 14 repudiated/rejected by DFS (DRT)'. Further, at no stage has it been the case that the CPIO, DFS has stated unavailability of the information/file, rather, there appears to be an evasiveness in the way the CPIO, DFS has dealt with point no.(i) of the RTI Application by roping in DoPT, when it is also eventually the stand of the DoPT that DFS ought to take their own stand as the relevant file in entirely is in the original custody of DFS. The amount of confusion caused in the matter by CPIO, DFS and by CPIO, DoPT at the behest of the CPIO, DFS is abominable to note and it is also a matter of fact that the DoPT may have informed DFS to take their own view in the first instance itself instead of bringing in the aspect of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act without any head or tail.
Having observed as above, at the outset, the Commission dispenses with the role of the CPIO, DoPT in the matter.
Further, the Commission does not deem it expedient to adjudicate on the apprehensions of the CPIO, DFS routed through the CPIO, DoPT slyly relying on Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act as the reliance of the CPIO is found to be extremely laboured and without any basis.
Now, the CPIO, DFS is directed to provide a revised reply to point no.(i) of the RTI Application incorporating the extract of the available file noting from the records of DFS after redacting the names and identifying particulars of the third parties who may have authored the notes or whose references may be mentioned therein. The names and identifying particulars of the third parties stands exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act and the redaction of the records shall be carried out as per Section 10 of the RTI Act. The said information shall be provided free of cost to the Appellant within 15 days of the receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
9. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Page 13 of 14Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 24.07.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ.पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO, Department of Financial Services, DRT Section, 3rd Floor, Jeevan Deep Building, 10, Parliament Street, New Delhi - 110001
2. The CPIO, Department of Personnel & Training, RTI Cell, North Block, New Delhi - 110001
3. Vikash Jaitly Page 14 of 14 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)