Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Rakesh Singh vs Defence on 28 July, 2025
CAT,Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00017/2025 Rakesh Singh Vs. UOI &Ors.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH LUCKNOW
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 332/00017 of 2025
Dated, this 28thday of July, 2025
Hon'ble Mr.Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member-Judicial
Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative
Rakesh Singh aged about 46 years, Son of Late Mohan Singh,
employed as W.M.in Ordnance Factory Project Korwa, Resident of Qtr.
No. 08, Type - IV, Ayudhpuram, Post HAL Korwa, District Amethi -
227412.
.....Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Rakesh Singh Applicant Present in Person
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence,
Department of Defence Production &Supplies, New Delhi-110011.
2. The Secretary Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and
Pensions (Department of Personal & Training), North Block, New
Delhi-110011.
3. DDG/G, Directorate of Ordnance (Coordination & Services) New
Delhi Office, Defence Office Complex, 6th Floor, C-Block, K.G. Marg,
New Delhi-110001.
4. Executive Director, Ordnance Facto Project Korwa, (A Unit of
AWEIL Ltd) Post-HAL Korwa, Amethi (UP)-227412.
.....Respondents
By Advocate:Ms. Prayagmati Gupta
ORDER (ORAL)
Per Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative In this case relating to promotion, the applicant has sought following reliefs:
"(i) To quash the select list dated 30.12.2024 to the extent it excludes the name of the applicant, contained as Annexure No. A-1 to this OA, with all consequential benefits.
(ii) To issue order or direction commanding the respondents to consider the claim of the applicant for promotion and open the seal cover and accord promotion and posting to the applicant on the post on Joint General Manager pursuant to the DPC conducted on 26.12.2024 interpolating the name of the applicant in the list of selected Page 1 of 5 CAT,Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00017/2025 Rakesh Singh Vs. UOI &Ors.
candidates dated 30.12.2024 with all consequential benefits attached thereto with 24% interest per annum w.e.f. 01.01.2025.
(iii) Any order/directions this Tribunal may deem fit, just and proper under the circumstances of the case.
(iv) To award cost of the petition."
2. Aggrieved by exclusion of his name in the order dated 30.12.2024 issued by the respondents for promotion to Junior Administrative Grade (Director/Joint General Manager or equivalent) with effect from 01.01.2025, the applicant has preferred this OA. 3.1 The applicant states that he is an officer of the Indian Ordnance Factory Service who joined service as Assistant Works Manager (Junior Time Scale) on 02.07.2012 and was promoted to Works Manager (Senior Time Scale) vide order dated 01.04.2016, but the promotion was cancelled vide order dated 24.11.2016 due to a pending criminal case no. 586/2013 (u/s 498A, 504, 506 and 323 of IPC) against him arising out of matrimonial dispute with his wife. The applicant further states that he challenged the cancellation of his promotion in OA No. 8 of 2017 which was allowed on 23.12.2021, but challenged by the respondents in Writ - A 9587/2022 which was dismissed by Hon'ble High Court on 05.07.2022, and further challenged by the respondents in Civil Misc. Review Petition 519/2022 which also came be dismissed on 22.02.2023, following which the respondents promoted the applicant to Works Manager with effect from 01.04.2016 notionally vide order dated 09.05.2023.
3.2 In the meantime, the applicant was again superseded vide order dated 31.03.2021, promoting his juniors with effect from 01.04.2021 in Senior Time Scale (Non-Functional). The applicant challenged it in OA No. 34 of 2024 which was disposed of directing the respondents to consider the applicant's representation; the rejection of applicant's representation led to OA No. 294 of 2024 which was decided on 04.07.2024 in favour of the applicant.
Page 2 of 5CAT,Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00017/2025 Rakesh Singh Vs. UOI &Ors. 3.3 The applicant contends that he has been illegally excluded from promotion to Junior Administrative Grade (Joint General Manager) vide impugned order dated 30.12.2024 on the same ground of ongoing criminal case despite fulfilling the eligibility criteria. 4.1 The respondents state that in compliance of this Tribunal's order dated 04.07.2024 in OA No. 294 of 2024, the applicant has been promoted to STS (NF) with effect from 01.04.2022 subject to outcome of court cases, vide order dated 03.04.2025.
4.2 It is contended by the respondents that as per provisions of office memorandum (OM, hereafter) dated 14.09.2022 issued by the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT, hereafter), the grave charges against the applicant in the ongoing criminal proceedings in case no. 586/2013 warrant continued denial of promotion. The vigilance status of the applicant was marked as 'not clear'. Therefore, the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC, hereafter) has been placed in sealed cover till the conclusion of the criminal proceedings.
5. We have heard both the parties.
6.1 Admittedly, in the matter regarding the applicant's first promotion from JTS (AWM) to STS (WM) litigated in OA No. 8 of 2017, the Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal had passed the following order on 23.12.2021:
"5. Having heard the arguments put forth by the applicant and the learned counsel for the respondents and also having carefully perused all the relevant documents on record, we are of the view that some facts are not disputed at all. The case of the applicant was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) in its meeting held on 31.03.2016 where the vigilance clearance of the applicant was on record. The DPC assessed the candidate to be 'Fit' for promotion and as a consequence of this recommendation, the applicant was promoted. However, this order of promotion was cancelled when it was realized that the applicant was facing criminal prosecution for charges under section 323, 504, 498A and 506 of IPC. At the same Page 3 of 5 CAT,Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00017/2025 Rakesh Singh Vs. UOI &Ors.
time, it is to be borne in mind that these charges were neither related to nor were the result of any of the official responsibilities or conduct of the applicant. These charges were an outcome of a marital dispute he was facing. The DoPT Rules and instructions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents do not conclusively cover the instant case as reading the instructions in their entirety makes it obvious that the criminal prosecution which will be an impediment to the promotion should essentially be related to the official position, responsibility and conduct of an employee. This is not the case here. The judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) No. 6391 of 2016 relied upon by the applicant makes an unambiguous observation that denial of promotion to an employee on ground of criminal charges, which are not related to the service of the employee is misconceived and does not stand the scrutiny of law.
6. In view of the detailed position explained above, the O.A. is allowed and the impugned order dated 24.11.2016 bearing No. 381/4430-A/Per/G is quashed. Since the Departmental Promotion Committee had found the applicant "FIT" for promotion, the same shall be awarded to him w.e.f. 01.04.2016 when his first promotion order was issued, which later got to be cancelled. Further direction is given to the respondents to comply with these directions within a period of four weeks from the date of this order. No order as to costs."
(emphasis supplied) It is noted that the above order dated 23.12.2021 of this Tribunal was upheld in Hon'ble High Court on 05.07.2022 (Writ - A No. 9587 of 2022) and on 22.02.2023 in CMRA No. 519 of 2022.
6.2 Further, it is noted that the matter regarding the applicant's second promotion from STS to STS (NF) litigated in OA No. 294 of 2024 was decided by this Tribunal in a similar vein vide order dated 04.07.2024:
"8. Admittedly, a private criminal case arising out of matrimonial dispute with applicant and his wife under section 498A, 504, 506 and 323 of IPC is not connected with any act of commission or omission on part of the applicant in discharge of his official duties. Applicant has been once promoted in compliance of CAT's order dated 23.12.2021 passed in OA No. 08 of 2017, which has been upheld by Hon'ble High Court as well, hence, it would be unfair, unjust and improper to deny the promotion to the applicant on the same very ground. Thus the impugned order is illegal and unjustified and deserves to be quashed.
9. In view of above, OA is disposed of in the following terms:
(i) Impugned order dated 08.05.2024 is quashed.
(ii) Respondents/Competent Authority is directed to consider promotion of the applicant for second promotion scale as per rules and provide subsequent benefits accordingly.Page 4 of 5
CAT,Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00017/2025 Rakesh Singh Vs. UOI &Ors.
(iii) The said exercise shall be completed within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(iv) It is clarified that from the date of first promotion till the proposed date of second promotion, if anything is adverse against the applicant except above private criminal case (arising out of matrimonial dispute with applicant and his wife under section 498A, 504, 506 and 323 of IPC), then that may be taken into consideration while considering the case of the applicant."
(emphasis supplied) 6.3 Admittedly, the denials of the first and the second promotions of the applicant have been held unsustainable in law by this Tribunal in previous litigations in OA No. 8 of 2017 and in OA No. 264 of 2024, respectively. As the applicant's third promotion to JAG/JGM has been denied on same ground of ongoing criminal proceedings, the principle of judicial discipline prevents us from taking a different view of the matter in this OA in connection with the applicant's third promotion as well. 7.1 In view of the foregoing, this OA is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to open the sealed cover pursuant to the DPC conducted on 26.12.2024 and consider the applicant's case for promotion to JAG (JGM) with consequential benefits ignoring the pending criminal proceedings against him in case no. 586/2013 within three months of receipt of certified copy of this order. 7.2 Pending MAs, if any, are also disposed of.
7.3 The Parties shall bear their own costs.
(Pankaj Kumar) (Justice Anil Kumar Ojha)
Member (A) Member (J)
vidya
Vidya Ben Digitally signed by
Vidya Ben Waghela
Waghela Date: 2025.07.29
10:49:51 +05'30'
Page 5 of 5