Central Information Commission
Vimal Kumar Srivastava vs Department Of Revenue on 28 August, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DOREV/A/2024/107062
Vimal Kumar Srivastava .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Directorate General of Vigilance,
Indirect Taxes & Customs, Lucknow
Zonal Unit, Hall No. 3, 5th & 11th
Floor, Kendriya Bhawan, Sector H,
Aliganj, Lucknow - 226024 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 05.08.2025
Date of Decision : 28.08.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 22.11.2023
CPIO replied on : 12.12.2023
First appeal filed on : 18.12.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 18.01.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 04.03.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 22.11.2023 seeking the following information:
"Ref: Memorandum dated 09.10.2023 Page 1 of 6 That the Memorandum dated 09.10.2023 has been issued and served to me by The Commissioner Central GST & Central Excise, Audit, Commissionerate, 7, Havelock Road, Lucknow-226001 and the enquiry is in process. I asked for certain documents to be accessed as additional documents, but, the same has been denied by the I.O. on the grounds that these cannot be given as they are not relevant whereas these are most relevant to defend my case and in some documents the CVC also states that the same be given. Therefore, I need the copy of same and if these are not available a certificate of non-availability be given.
Following information are being requested: -
1. The copy of investigation report by DGOV.
2. Copy of first stage advice received from CVO.
3. Copy of statement of Smt. Niharika Lakha, the then Deputy Commissioner, Airport, Lucknow."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 12.12.2023 stating as under:
(i) "As the departmental inquiry has not attained its finality, the copy of preliminary investigation report cannot be provided at this stage under Section 8(1) (h) of RTI Act, 2005.
(ii) Not applicable in this case as the preliminary investigation was conducted at DGoV LZU and a draft charge memorandum was forwarded to the Commissioner CGST Audit Commissionerate, Lucknow for issuance.
(iii) No statement of Smt. Niharika Lakha, the then DC was recorded at DGoV, LZU, Lucknow."
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.12.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 18.01.2024, held as under.
"I have examined the RTI application dated 21.10.2023, reply dated 08.11.2023 of the CPIO and First Appeal dated 20.12.2023.
On going through the submissions made by the applicant and perusing the records, I observe that the CPIO informed that as the departmental inquiry has not attained its finality, the copy of preliminary investigation report cannot be provided at this stage. I find that as of now the Investigation report has been submitted but I feel that mere submission of the report by the investigating officer cannot be construed as the completion of investigation.Page 2 of 6
The word investigation used in Section 8(1)(h) of the Act should be construed broadly and liberally. The CIC in case No. CIC/AT/A/2007/00007 dated 10.07.2007 stated that ".... Here investigation would mean all actions of law enforcement, disciplinary proceedings, enquires, adjudications and so on. Logically, no investigation could be said to be complete unless it has reached a point where the final decision on the basis of that investigation is taken."
An early disclosure of the investigation report in such a case, besides being against the norms of equity, would have caused irretrievable injury to the officer/person's (who would have been the subject of investigation) standing and reputation. Premature disclosure of investigation-related information has the potentiality to tar the employee's reputation, permanently, which cannot be undone even by his eventual exoneration. The balance of advantage thus, lies in exempting investigations/enquiries in vigilance, misconduct or disciplinary cases, etc. from disclosure requirements under the Act, till a decision in a given case is reached by the competent authority. There is one other factor that also needs some reflection i.e. disclosure of an investigation/enquiry report (as demanded in this case by the appellant) even before its acceptance/rejection by a given competent authority will expose that authority to competing pressures which may hamper cool reflection on the report and compromise objectivity of decision-making. Thus, the information furnished by the CPIO is proper.
So far as the information regarding question no. 2 of the RTI application/ Appeal, is concerned wherein the applicant has sought copy of first stage advice, the CPIO informed that "Not applicable in this case as the preliminary investigation was conducted at DGOV, LZU and a draft charge memorandum was forwarded to the Commissioner, CGST Audit Commissionerate, Lucknow for issuance. In this regard, I feel that the CPIO could not express the complete process of the case investigated by the LZU. In this regard, it is to state that the cases where Zonal Unit investigates the cases and draft Charge Memorandum is send to the concerned Commissionerate for issuance, the first stage advice itself lies in it. Therefore, no separate first stage advice was given in this case DECISION-IN-APPEAL In view of the above, I hold that the information furnished by the CPIO is proper and there is no justification in the grievance of the appellant on the same. Hence, I reject the appeal as not maintainable under the Right to Information Act, 2005."
Page 3 of 64. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present with Shri Nathu Prasad appeared through video conference.
Respondent: Shri Chandra Sekhar Tewari, CPIO/Assistant Commissioner, appeared through vide conference.
5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 04.03.2024 is available on record.
6. The Appellant inter reiterated his grievance and contended that relevant documents necessary for his defence were denied. He also submitted that he was not given a copy of the draft charge memorandum.
7. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that he had filed written submissions dated 25.07.2025 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:
1. "It is stated that the investigation in which Appellant was involved was carried out at DGoV, Lucknow. The First Stage Advice as stated in appeal order lies in the draft charge memorandum itself. Further, DGoV, LZU, recommended for initiation of Regular Departmental Action (RDA) under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, vide letter F. No. DGOV/Vig./INV/192/2021/581 dated 06.09.2023, along with the draft charge memorandum in the form of the First Stage Advice (FSA) against the said officer, was forwarded to the Competent Disciplinary Authority.
2. It is submitted that the Appellant was issued Charge Memorandum on 09/10/2023 and final order was also issued on 24/01/2024. At present no action is pending on Respondent side."
The Respondent further submitted that the Appellant has already been awarded a major penalty. He clarified that he himself was not the authority who issued the charge memorandum; rather, his role was limited to Page 4 of 6 forwarding the draft charge memorandum to the competent authority, which thereafter finalized and issued the same to the concerned officer.
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 information relating to vigilance and disciplinary proceedings is specifically covered under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005, where disclosure would impede the process of investigation or adjudication. The Respondent during the hearing explained that the draft charge memorandum itself constituted the first stage advice. It was further submitted that the Appellant was already issued a charge memorandum on 09.10.2023 and a final order was passed on 24.01.2024, wherein major penalty was imposed.
9. The Respondent has furnished categorical replies to all points. The CPIO has correctly invoked Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act with respect to the investigation report at the relevant time. The statement sought is not available, and the draft charge memorandum itself constitutes the first stage advice, which has already been acted upon by the Competent Authority. In view of the above, the Commission finds no infirmity in the response of the CPIO and the FAA. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this matter.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 5 of 6 Copy To:
The FAA, Directorate General of Vigilance Indirect Taxes & Customs, Lucknow Zonal Unit, Hall No. 3, 5th & 11th Floor, Kendriya Bhawan, Sector H, Aliganj, Lucknow - 226024 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)