Central Information Commission
Arun Kumar vs Advanced Weapons And Equipment India ... on 12 February, 2026
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/AWEIL/A/2025/638059
Arun Kumar ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Rifle Factory Ishapore,
North 24 Parganas, West ...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
Bengal
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 14.04.2025 FA : 28.05.2025 SA : Nil
CPIO : 05.05.2025 FAO : 20.06.2025 Hearing : 20.01.2026
Date of Decision: 27.01.2026
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.04.2025 seeking information on the following points:
1. Kindly provide a copy reflecting the adjustment of the double payment amounting to Rs 1,72,69,186.00 made to the Principal Controller of Accounts (Fys), as highlighted by M/s Nag & Associates on page 13 of the Forensic Audit Report of Rifle Factory Ishapore. The supporting copy of the Forensic Audit Report of Rifle Factory Ishapore is uploaded herewith.
2. Additionally, please share a copy showing the revised cash defalcation amount CIC/AWEIL/A/2025/638059 Page 1 of 4 after accounting for this adjustment.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 05.05.2025 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"Due to suspected irregularities/misappropriation of RFI Public Fund from the period 2010 to 2016, departmental disciplinary action initiated by RFI against the then Cashier/Cash Office, RFI, who is presently in the strength of GSF, Cossipore. Status on Inquiry proceeding against him is still underway and any information on the conclusive decision on the said inquiry is still awaited from GSF, Cossipore. Also, it is mentioned here that the case was also referred to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Office, Kolkata and subsequently, charge-sheet has been filed against the said Ex-Cashier by CBI, as per available record. However, no information with regard to closure of this case has been received from CBI till date. It may be mentioned that Cash Book of RFI for the period 2012 to 07/2016 are presently under the custody of CBI Office, Kolkata. Considering the above, it would not be prudent to disclose information/document as sought till the receipt of final outcome of the cases initiated by the department as well as by the external Govt. agency as the same may impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. Hence, exemption clause under section 8 (1) (h) is being invoked and as such, no information/document as sought can be disclosed at present."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.05.2025 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 20.06.2025 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
CIC/AWEIL/A/2025/638059 Page 2 of 4Hearing Proceedings & Decision:
5. The appellant attended the hearing in-person and on behalf of the respondent Ashish Kumar Shukla, CPIO & General Manager, attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the denial of information under Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act is unsustainable, as the sought records pertain to publicly acknowledged financial irregularities and no cogent material has been produced to demonstrate that disclosure would impede any investigation. Further, the appellant argued that since the subject-matter pertains to substantial public funds, disclosure of the information sought is warranted in larger public interest.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant has inter alia requested for documents reflecting alleged double payments that include 55 cashbooks and other financial records for the period 2012 to 2016, which have been seized by CBI. Therefore, the said records are not available under their custody. Further, the CPIO explained that he had invoked exemption under Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act keeping in view the overall status of the averred matter.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the respondent confirmed during the course of hearing that the information sought by the appellant comprised of financial records which had been seized by CBI in due course of investigation carried out by them. Therefore, the requested information was not available under their custody. That being so, the CPIO cannot be compelled to produce records not available under his custody. However, it is noted that the CPIO, who was also the then CPIO, when the RTI application was filed, altered his stand and failed to give a factual reply as on date of receipt of RTI Application. Keeping in view the above inconsistency, the CPIO is cautioned to respond to RTI applications after conducting due diligence of records CIC/AWEIL/A/2025/638059 Page 3 of 4 available under their custody and with proper application of mind, in future cases.
However, the information not being available under the respondent authority's custody, there appears to be no scope of relief in terms of disclosure of information in the instant appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामल ंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) निनां क/Date: 27.01.2026 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ.पी. पोखररयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO, Joint General Manager, Rifle Factory Ishapore, A Unit of AWEIL, PO - Ishapore-Nawabganj, PS - Noapara, North 24 Parganas, West Bengal - 743144
2. Arun Kumar CIC/AWEIL/A/2025/638059 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)