CIC Orders Army HQ to Re-examine Alleged Mischief in Official Records and Provide Revised Reply Under RTI Act - 2025-07-09

Laws, Courts & Judgments.

CIC Directs Army HQ to Probe Discrepancies in Records After Soldier Alleges 'Mischief'

New Delhi – The Central Information Commission (CIC) has ordered the Indian Army Headquarters to re-examine specific points in two Right to Information (RTI) applications filed by a soldier, citing allegations of "mischief" and potential anachronisms in official documents. Information Commissioner Vinod Kumar Tiwari directed the Army to provide a revised, updated reply and take action against any erring official if misconduct is discovered.

The decision came in response to two second appeals filed by Havildar Rajender against the Army HQ, which were clubbed together due to their similar nature.

---

Background of the Case

The appellant, Havildar Rajender, had filed two comprehensive RTI applications in August and October 2023, seeking detailed information related to his service matters. His queries pertained to the processing of Part II orders, pay and allowances, leave procedures, movement orders, and the allocation of government accommodation during his tenure at HQ 36 RAPIDS.

The core of his grievance stemmed from a perceived lack of transparency and a suspicion of deliberate errors in official records, which he believed were causing him financial and professional harm. The Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Army HQ provided point-wise responses, furnishing some information, directing the appellant to other departments for certain queries, and denying other details by citing Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which exempts the disclosure of third-party personal information.

Dissatisfied with the initial replies and the subsequent orders from the First Appellate Authority (FAA), Havildar Rajender escalated the matter to the Central Information Commission.

Arguments Before the Commission

During the hearing, Havildar Rajender argued that he had not received complete and correct information. He highlighted two critical points of contention:

1. Alleged Anachronism: In his RTI application (Case No. CIC/ARMHQ/A/2024/105312), he pointed to a personal letter dated 24th August 2023, which was allegedly accompanied by an attachment dated 26th August 2023. He questioned how a document could be attached to a letter that was dated two days prior, suggesting potential "mischief" and manipulation of records.

2. Missing SOP: In his second RTI (Case No. CIC/ARMHQ/A/2024/105311), he had sought the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the practice of deducting "cinema cutting" charges from soldiers' pay even while they were on leave, a practice he claimed was not followed in other units. He stated this SOP was never provided to him.

The respondent, representing Army HQ, maintained that a complete point-wise reply had been furnished based on the documents available on record.

Commission's Observations and Ruling

After hearing both parties, Information Commissioner Vinod Kumar Tiwari observed that the appellant's primary grievance concerned the incompleteness and incorrectness of the information provided, particularly in relation to the suspected manipulation of dates.

The Commission found merit in the appellant's plea for a closer look at the specific issues raised. Acknowledging the seriousness of the allegation of anachronism, the CIC issued a clear directive to the respondent.

"The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case... observes that the Appellant is aggrieved that complete and correct information has not been provided to him... The Appellant contended that there is an error of dates (anachronism) as explained in point No. (ठ) of the RTI application... He suspects mischief in the matter."

Final Decision and Implications

In its final order dated July 9, 2025, the Commission directed the Army HQ to:

Re-examine the two specific points raised by the appellant: the request for the SOP on cinema cuttings and the query regarding the discrepancy in document dates.

Provide a revised and updated reply to the appellant on these points within four weeks.

Take action against any "erring official" if the mischief alleged by the appellant is found to be true.

The Commission also instructed the First Appellate Authority to ensure the compliance of its order. This judgment underscores the CIC's role in ensuring accountability and transparency within public authorities, including the armed forces, and empowers individuals to question discrepancies in official records through the RTI framework.