According to an RTI reply, necessary action including removal of service and censure was taken against an inspector, eight sub-inspectors, six assistant sub-inspectors, three head constables, five constables and a personal assistant for their involvement in illegal practices between 2001 and 2010.
A deputy superintendent of police, an inspector and three sub-inspectors were charged with corruption and later exonerated by the departmental vigilance wing, it said.
However, the IB did not give names of the officials found involved in corrupt practices citing "security reasons".
Giving details of the case registered on February 2, 2010 against a constable who demanded money from domestic and foreign tourists passing through Foreigners Check Post (FCP) Daranga for Bhutan, it said.
"The Disciplinary Authority, considering the fact that the charged officer is quite young and has a long career ahead in service, imposed major penalty of reduction in pay by two stages for a period of one year with cumulative effect".
Whereas, a sub inspector was charged for accepting "illegal gratification of Rs250 and CD cassette from a shop owner" on January 8, 2003 and "awarded penalty of withholding of one increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect".
"Name of delinquent officials is not being disclosed for security reasons," the IB said in reply to an RTI query filed by PTI.
IB, country's premier internal security agency, is responsible for gathering and dissemination of intelligence with various central and state government authorities.
"There is no case of human rights violation and sexual harassment registered against IB officials. Similarly, no other agency such as DRI, police, income tax etc have registered any case of corruption against IB officials," said KC Meena, Central Public Information Officer.
Earlier, the Central Information Commission had sought explanation from the IB for denying information on cases of corruption and sexual harassment against its officials between 2001 and 2010 under the Right to Information Act.
Following the denial of information from both the Public Information officer and First Appellate Authority, the applicant had appealed before the CIC.