Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Rudra Pratap Singh vs Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And ... on 25 March, 2026

                                के ीय सू चना आयोग
                          Central Information Commission
                             बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                           Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                           नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067


File No: CIC/CBECE/A/2025/100486

Rudra Pratap Singh                                    .....अपीलकता/Appellant


                                        VERSUS
                                         बनाम

CPIO,
Central Board of Indirect
Taxes and Customs, North
Block, New Delhi - 110001                             .... ितवादीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                     :    03.03.2026
Date of Decision                    :    25.03.2026

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :               Vinod Kumar Tiwari

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on            :    02.09.2024
CPIO replied on                     :    07.10.2024
First appeal filed on               :    01.11.2024
First Appellate Authority's order   :    27.11.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated          :    26.12.2024

Information sought

:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02.09.2024 (online) seeking the following information:
"1. Kindly inform to me the present status of my second draft Charge-Sheet forwarded by Shri Somesh Tiwari, then Hon'ble Commissioner, CGST & CX CIC/CBECE/A/2025/100486 Page 1 of 7 (Audit), Kanpur by his letter issued vide प का-V(1)10-

Vig.Audit/RPS/KNP/2021/पाट-II/251-253, on 31.05.2021, i.e., whether:

A. The said draft Charge-Sheet (supra) has never been received in your good office; or B. The said draft Charge-Sheet (supra) had been received in your good office, but had not been processed; or C. The said draft Charge-Sheet (supra) has already been converted into Charge-Sheet and ready to be served; or D. The said draft Charge-Sheet (supra) has already been converted into Charge-Sheet and decided to be not to be served upon me due to any of the valid reasons; or E. The said draft Charge-Sheet (supra) has been closed by your good office, as informed to me by Shri Vijay Kumar Singh Ji, Hon'ble Commissioner, CGST & CX, Allahabad in the month of August, 2023 as well as in December, 2023.

2. Further, if my said second draft Charge-Sheet is still not closed, then kindly inform me the reasons why my said second Draft Charge-Sheet is still not being served upon me.

3. Kindly inform to me the dispatch number of the said RTI reply which was issued under F. No. C-50/RTI/34/2024-Ad.II on 22.07.2024 by Shri S. A. Ansari, CPIO and Under Secretary of Ad.II section.

4. Kindly provide me the photocopy/Xerox copy of all the pages of the dispatch register/registers of your good office (Ad.II Section) for the period lying between 25.06.2024 to 25.07.2024 by which the said RTI reply was dispatched.

5. Kindly inform to me all dispatch numbers of the said RTI Order-in-Appeal dated 21.08.2024 issued vide F. No. C-50/RTI/34/2024-Ad.II by Shri Saurabh Kumar, the learned 1st Appellate Authority and respected Director of Ad.II section.

6. Kindly provide me the photocopy/Xerox copy of all the pages of the dispatch register/registers of your good office (Ad.II Section) for the period lying between 01.08.2024 to 30.08.2024 by which the said RTI Order-in-Appeal dated 21.08.2024 was issued.

7. Kindly inform to me all the dispatch numbers of the said Note-Sheet Tracer dated 14.08.2024 issued vide F. No. C-50/44/2024-Ad.II.

8. Kindly provide me the photocopy/Xerox copy of all the pages of the dispatch register/registers of your good office (Ad.II Section) for the period lying between 01.08.2024 to 30.08.2024 by which the Note-Sheet tracer was issued.

CIC/CBECE/A/2025/100486 Page 2 of 7

9. Kindly clarify to me whether the said file (i.e., F. No. C-50/44/2021-Ad.II (FTS No. 300513130) is not traceable or the Note-Sheet of the said file is not traceable.

10. Please inform to me that whether the said draft Charge-Sheet as sent to Hon'ble Member (Admin.) of CBIC by Shri Somesh Tiwari, then Hon'ble Commissioner, could still be issued to me, just by enclosing some new note- Sheet pages or recreating old Note-Sheet pages through some other available sources."

2. The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 07.10.2024 stating as under:

"1 A. As per the available records, the draft Sheet Charge-issued by Kanpur (Audit) Commissionerate, CGST & CX Lucknow Zone vide their letter प का-

V(1)10-Vig.Audit/RPS/KNP/2021/पाट-11/251-253 dated 31.05.2021 was received in Ad.II Section on 08.05.2023.

B. As per the available records, the said draft Charge-Sheet was processed by Ad.II Section, CBIC.

C to E As the Note-Sheet of the relevant file is not traceable at present, the undersigned CPIO is not in a position to provide any information at this stage.

3. RTI reply dated 22.07.2024 was issued by Speed Post under F. No. C- 50/RT1/34/2024-Ad.ll. The Speed Post No. ED010181625IN. is

4. Copy of the concerned page of dispatch register by which the RTI reply dated 22.07.2024 was dispatched is enclosed.

5. RTI Order-in-Appeal dated 21.08.2024 was issued by Speed Post under F. No. C-50/RTI/34/2024-Ad.II. The Speed Post No. is ED015420962IN.

6. Copy of the concerned page of dispatch register by which the RTI Order-in- Appeal dated 21.08.2024 was dispatched is enclosed.

7. & 8. The Tracer dated 14.08.2024 under vide F. No. C-50/44/2024-Ad.II was circulated by office Peon to the concerned sections of Department of Revenue on 14.08.2024.

9. The Note-Sheet of the relevant file is not traceable at present.

CIC/CBECE/A/2025/100486 Page 3 of 7

10. The CPIO is not required under the Act to give opinion on situations or predict future actions."

3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.11.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 27.11.2024, held as under:

"Whereas, the above-mentioned appeal has been filed by Shri Rudra Pratap Singh, Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, CESTAT, 2nd Floor, Narmada Block, Customs House, 60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600001 on the ground that the concerned CPIO has provided incomplete, misleading and false information.
Whereas, applicant has sought information vide his RTI application Registration No. CBECE/R/E/24/00628 dated 02.09.2024.
Whereas, the CPIO vide letter C-50/RTI/34/2024-Ad.II dated 07.10.2024 has provided requisite information to the applicant as was available with him..
As regards the delay of few days, the CPIO is directed to adhere to the time lines.
Whereas I find no dissatisfactory reply/information provided by the CPIO.
Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of."

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference.
Respondent: Shri S. Lianlalmuan, Under Secretary & CPIO appeared in person.

5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal/Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 26.12.2024 is not available on record. The Respondent confirmed non-service. Thus, Regulation No. 10 of the CIC/CBECE/A/2025/100486 Page 4 of 7 Central Information Commission Management Regulations 2007 has not been complied with by the Appellant.

6. The Appellant inter alia submitted that reply given by the Respondent was incomplete and evasive.

7. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had filed detailed written submissions dated 11.02.2025 disclosing complete facts of the case and requested the Commission to place the same on record, copy of the same was sent to the Appellant. The relevant paras of the written submission are reproduced as under:

"....3. Briefly, the applicant had sought information in connection with the status of the draft charge-sheet forwarded by Shri Somesh Tiwari, then Commissioner, CGST & CX (Audit), Kanpur vide his letter F.No.V(1)10- Vig.Audit/RPS/KNP/2021/Part-II/251-253 dated 31.05.2021.
4. In this regard, it is humbly submitted that during that period of time, the note-sheet of the relevant file dealing with the said letter/draft charge- sheet could not be traced, and a Tracer dated 14.08.2024 (Annexure-I) was also issued in this regard. Accordingly, the RTI application was disposed of by the then CPIO(Ad.II) vide reply dated 07.10.2024 (Annexure-II) by providing the requisite information/documents to the applicant as available with him at that time. Not satisfied, the applicant later filed an Appeal dated 01.11.2024 before the First Appellate Authority on the ground that the CPIO has provided incomplete, misleading and false information. The then FAA (Director-Ad.II) disposed of the Appeal vide order dated 27.11.2024 (Annexure-III).
4. It is also humbly submitted that the note-sheet of the relevant file was later located. It has been observed that the draft charge-sheet forwarded by Shri Somesh Tiwari, then Commissioner. CGST & CX (Audit). Kanpur vide his letter F.No.V(1)10-Vig.Audit/RPS/KNP/2021/पाट-II/251-253 dated 31.05.2021 was examined and then forwarded to Chief Commissioner, CGST & CX, Lucknow Zone to get the complete matter examined afresh. Subsequently, CGST & CX, Lucknow Zone stated that the charges against Shri Rudra Pratap Singh have been more or less covered in the Charge Memorandum No.21/2022 dated 01.12.2022 issued to the officer and suggested that as disciplinary proceedings have already been initiated CIC/CBECE/A/2025/100486 Page 5 of 7 against him, issuing further charge memorandum on similar issues would not serve any purpose and would be redundant. Thereafter, in agreement with the proposal of CGST & CX, Lucknow Zone, it was decided that issuing another chargesheet on similar grounds may not be necessary. Therefore, the matter regarding draft charge-sheet forwarded by CGST & CX (Audit), Kanpur vide letter F.No.V(1)10-Vig.Audi/RPS/KNP/2021/पाट-11/254-253 dated 31.05.2021 was closed with the approval of the competent authority on 06.02.2025.
5. The above submissions may kindly be placed before the Hon'ble Information Commissioner for his kind consideration."

Decision:

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that the CPIO has furnished a point-wise reply to the RTI application based on the information available on record at the relevant time. The Commission notes that specific information regarding receipt and processing of the draft charge- sheet was duly provided, while in respect of certain queries, the CPIO expressed inability to furnish information due to non-traceability of the relevant note-sheet at that stage. The Commission finds that the reply was in accordance with the records available with the Public Authority.

9. The Commission further notes from the written submissions of the Respondent that the relevant file/note-sheet was subsequently traced and it has been clarified that the draft charge-sheet in question was examined and ultimately closed with the approval of the Competent Authority, in view of the fact that disciplinary proceedings had already been initiated against the Appellant on similar grounds. This subsequent clarification sufficiently addresses the core concern of the Appellant regarding the status of the draft charge-sheet.

10. With regard to other queries relating to dispatch details and copies of registers, the Commission observes that the Respondent has provided the relevant available documents and information. Queries seeking clarification, reasons or opinion have rightly been denied as being beyond the scope of "information" under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.

CIC/CBECE/A/2025/100486 Page 6 of 7

11. Further, it is observed that the grievance of the Appellant essentially pertains to service matters and disciplinary proceedings. The RTI Act is not a forum for adjudication of such grievances. The Appellant is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance in accordance with Law.

12. In view of the foregoing observations, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply furnished by the Respondent. Intervention is not warranted in the matter.

The appeal is dismissed accordingly.

Sd/-

Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) Sd/-

(S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:

The FAA, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, North Block, New Delhi - 110001 CIC/CBECE/A/2025/100486 Page 7 of 7 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)