Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Ajay Choudhary vs Ministry Of Defence on 26 December, 2025

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


File No: CIC/DODEF/A/2024/623781

Ajay Choudhary                                          .....अपीलकता/Appellant
                                        VERSUS
                                         बनाम

PIO,
Ministry of Defence,
D(Vigilance), Room No 341-A,
B Wing, Sena Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110011                                    .... ितवादीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                     :    18.12.2025
Date of Decision                    :    19.12.2025

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :               Vinod Kumar Tiwari

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on            :    06.02.2024
CPIO replied on                     :    26.02.2024
First appeal filed on               :    01.03.2024
First Appellate Authority's order   :    18.03.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated          :    05.06.2024

Information sought

:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.02.2024 (offline) seeking the following information:

"It is requested to kindly provide the following information (requisite fee is enclosed as Axis bank demand draft no. 006272 dated 06.02.24)-

1).Copy of approval of charge memorandum issued to Ajay Choudhary, ides, by competent authority in case no.13019/3/D(VIG III)/2007.

2). Copy of MoD initial note and comments of 2004-2005 recommending closure of complaint against Mr. M. Nautiyal in subsequent case no.13019/3/D(VIG III)/2007.

3). Copy of DGDE initial note and comments recommending exoneration of Ajay Choudhary (ides), on the report of inquiry officer in memorandum no.13019/3/D(VIG III)/2007 forwarded to Min. of Defence in 2011.

4). Copy of DGDE subsequent comments/note recommending issuance of disagreement memo against Ajay Choudhary (ides), on the report of inquiry officer exonerating the officer in memorandum no.13019/3/D(VIG III)/ 2007 forwarded to Min. of Defence in Nov.2011.

5). Copy of MoD recommendation to CVC for closure of case against M. Nautiyal (retd.) and Shri. Vedprakash may also be given."

2. The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 26.02.2024 stating as under:

"Para 1, 2 & 5: Attention is invited to Hon'ble CIC's decision No. CIC/SB/A/2015/000649 dated 08.02.2017 wherein it is explicitly stipulated that "the file notings in vigilance files cannot be authorized come with the scope of Section 11(1) read with Section 2(n) of the RTI Act, 2005." Hence, the information sought is denied on the ground that the same is exempted from disclosure as per Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, 2005.

Para 3 & 4: Pertains to DGDE. Therefore, RTI Application w.r.t point 3 & 4 is being transferred to CPIO/DGDE U/s 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005."

3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.03.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 18.03.2024, held as under:

"Please refer to your first appeal dated 01.03.2024 under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 which has been received in this Division vide letter no. AKC/PERS/RTI/10 on 08.03.2024.

The grounds for the instant first appeal is apparently non-disclosure of information sought in Para 01, 02 and 05 of your RTI Application dated 06.02.2024.

Points No. 03 and 04 of your RTI Application do not pertain to this division/office and accordingly the CPIO/First Appellate Authority of the concerned organization, as the case may be, may be approached in respect of these points.

With regard to Points No. 01, 02 and 05 of your RTI Application, it is observed no. that CPIO has relied upon the spirit of Hon'ble CIC decision CIC/SB/A/2015/000649 dated 08.02.2017 to deny the information. The stand of CPIO is unambiguously seconded. No anomalies /inconsistencies are observed therein and in view of the same, no reasons for any intervention/interference with the order/decision of CPIO are made out.

The instant first appeal is accordingly disposed of at this end."

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal. Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Not Present.

Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kandpal, Under Secretary & CPIO and Ms. Anju Dalal, SO present in person.

5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 05.06.2024 is not available on record. Respondent confirms non-service.

6. Written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record.

7. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that complete point-wise information has been provided to the Appellant as per his RTI application and as per the documents available on record. The Respondent further apprised the Commission that the Appellant now stands exonerated and the file of the Respondent containing the said order was shown to the Commission during the hearing.

Decision:

8. The Commission upon perusal of records observes that the main premise of instant Appeal was non-furnishing of complete and correct information by the CPIO as per his RTI application. The Commission observes that reply/information in the matter has already been provided to the Appellant as per his RTI application informing him the factual position in the matter within the period stipulated under the RTI Act.

9. It is an admitted fact that the CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he is not expected to create information as per the desire of the Appellant. Further, the Respondent, during the hearing, informed the updated status in the matter that the Appellant is now exonerated.

10. In this regard, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply and as a sequel to it further clarifications tendered by the CPIO during hearing as the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act.

11. Intervention of the Commission is not warranted in the matter.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कु मार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूच ना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date CIC/DODEF/A/2024/623781 Page 4 of 5 Copy To:

The FAA, Ministry of Defence, D(Vigilance), B Wing, Sena Bhawan, New Delhi - 110011 CIC/DODEF/A/2024/623781 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)