Relevant dates emerging from the appeals:

The instant set of appeals have been clubbed for decision as these relate to the same subject matter.

Date of Hearing: 24.04.2026

Date of Decision: 12.05.2026

CORAM:

Hon’ble Commissioner

ANANDI RAMALINGAM

O R D E R

Second Appeal No. CIC/CVCOM/A/2025/639614

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.04.2025 seeking information on the following points:

➢ I had filed Complaint No. 82667/2024 before the CVC highlighting serious violations of CVC guidelines, irregularities, and suspected corruption in GEM Bid No. GEM/2024/B/5427705. Subsequently, I filed Complaint No. 90335/2025 against Shri Dinesh Kumar, IAS (CVO, Department of Military Affairs) for mishandling the vigilance complaint by wrongly treating it as an administrative issue. Both complaints were disposed of without proper vigilance inquiry, raising serious concerns about accountability.

1. Please provide certified copies of the complete file notings, comments, and remarks recorded by CVC officers/officials during the examination of Complaint No. 82667/2024 and 90335/2025 along with name, designation, and contact details of the officer(s) who examined and recommended the disposal/filing of the above complaints.

2. Kindly provide a copy of the Complaint Handling Policy or guidelines currently being followed by CVC while examining complaints alleging violation of CVC guidelines and suspected corruption.

3. Copy of rules/regulations/guidelines that are followed by CVC Or copy of any internal policy to mandatorily order a vigilance investigation if a complaint prima facie discloses violations of CVC circulars, and alleged collusion. If yes, please provide a copy.

4. Name and designation of the official whose assistance was sought for disposing this RTI u/s 5(4) + 5(5).

1.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 02.05.2025, 21.05.2025 & 26.05.2025 and the same is reproduced as under :-

Reply Dated 02.05.2025 (CPIO, CVC)

“Point (iv) 1: In so far as the undersigned CPIO is concerned, a certified copy of electronic noting of complaint No. 82667/2024, is enclosed. Details of the officer(s) as sought by the RTI applicant is denied under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005, as it constitutes personal information. However, as per Section 10 of RTI Act, 2005 a certified copy of electronic noting in complaint No. 82667/2024 with names of officials duly masked is enclosed. Masking the names of officials concerned is in line with decision of Central Information Commission in case No. CIC/SPMCO/A/2021/635370 in the matter of Sh. Satish Ashok Sherkhane VS Central Public Information Officer Security Printing & Minting Corporation of India Ltd. 16th Floor Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi- 110001. Further, in case No. CIC/BJ/A/2016/000051-AB in the matter of Sh. Ashwani Kumar Vs DPG & CPIO, Railway Board Room, No. 507, Fifth Floor New Delhi- 110001, Central Information Commission observes that "The principle underlying the basic objective of the Right to information should be given more supremacy and after applying Sec. 10 of the RTI Act the identity of the officers who gave their opinion through file notings and names of the witnesses who were examined while preparing the outcome report by the investigative officials can be masked and the balance portion of the contents of t