Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Jagdeep Dhanda vs Department Of Personnel And Training on 5 December, 2025
1- O.A. No. 753/2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
Original Application No.060/753/2025
Pronounced on: 05.12.2025
Reserved on: 13.11.2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, MEMBER (A)
Jagdeep Dhanda aged about 51 years, son of Sh. Jailal Dhanda, resident
of House No. 242/6, near Durga Mandir, Narwana, District Jind
(Haryana), presently posted as Additional Director (Administration),
Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, Haryana,
Chandigarh.
... Applicant
By Advocate: Mr. Gurminder Singh, Senior Advocate along with
Mr. Inder Pal Goyat and Mr. Satyam Tandon
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public
Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, North
Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi. [110001]
2. Union Public Service Commission, through its Secretary, Dholpur
House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi. [110069].
3. Chief Secretary, State of Haryana, Haryana Civil Secretariat,
Chandigarh- 160001
Digitally
signed by
MAMTA
WADHWA ... .Respondents
By Advocate: Mr. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC for Resp. No. 1
Mr. S.K. Vashisht, for Resp. No. 2
Mr. B.B. Sharma for Resp. No. 3
2- O.A. No. 753/2025
ORDER
Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA MEMBER (J):-
1. The present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:-
(i) To quash and set aside the impugned decision of the respondent No.2 qua the applicant, whereby the applicant has been included as PROVISIONAL in the 'Select List of 2020-2022' for promotion of SCS Officers to IAS of Haryana Cadre in the Selection Committee Meeting (SCM) held on 14.07.2025;
(ii) To direct the respondent No.2 to declare the PROVISIONAL inclusion of the applicant in the 'Select List of 2020-2022 pursuant to the Selection Committee Meeting (SCM) held on 14.07.2025 for promotion of SCS Officers to IAS of Haryana Cadre as UNCONDITIONAL and issue necessary consequential orders in this regard forthwith with further directions to respondent No.1 to appoint the applicant to the Indian Administrative Service in consequence thereof.
(iii) To direct the respondent No.2 to review the proceedings of the Selection Committee Meeting dated 14.07.2025, in view of the fact that the applicant has not been considered fairly;
iii) To direct respondent No.1 to notify the name of the applicant in the Select List for 2020-2022 'unconditionally' and promote him to the IAS of Haryana cadre;
3- O.A. No. 753/2025
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant was appointed to the Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch) through direct recruitment on 04.09.2002, and his services in the State civil Service were confirmed w.e.f. 04.09.2004. The respondent No.3 requested respondent No.1 on 22.02.2022 to determine the vacancy position for the years 2020 and 2021 (Annexure A-3), and again on 25.04.2022 requested for determination of three vacancies through appointment by promotion from SCS to IAS for the Select List of 2020 and seven vacancies (four SCS and three Non-SCS) for the Select List of 2021 (Annexure A-4). Accordingly, the respondent No. 1 determined vacancies through appointment by promotion from SCS to IAS of Haryana. Thereafter, on 01.07.2022, respondent No.3 forwarded the material/proposal for convening the Selection Committee Meeting (SCM) for the years 2020 and 2021 (Annexure A-5), and on 21.07.2022, communicated to respondent No.2 to prepare the select lists for 2020- 2021, specifically mentioning the applicant at Sr. No.4 as eligible for consideration (Annexure A-6).
3. The Respondent No.2 fixed 08.12.2022 as the date for the SCM (Annexure A-7), to prepare a select list of the year 2020-2021 for promotion of HCS to IAS, but on 06.12.2022, respondent No.3 abruptly sought postponement of the meeting due to administrative exigencies, leading to the meeting being postponed on 08.12.2022 (Annexure A-8). Soon thereafter, on 22.12.2022, respondent No.3 sent to respondent No.2 a memo dated 08.09.2022 received from the State Vigilance Bureau (Annexure A-9) for information and necessary action, although the applicant's name was not mentioned in that report. Respondent No.2, on 03.01.2023, sought clarification from Respondent No. 3 on 4- O.A. No. 753/2025 whether this report affected the proposal (Annexure A-10), and respondent No.3 categorically informed on 07.04.2023 that the report has no bearing on the proposal submitted by the State Government (Annexure A-11). Meanwhile, a Final Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., dated 30.06.2023, was filed by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Hisar, in FIR No.20 of 2005 in the court of Ld. Sessions Judge, Hisar u/s 13 (i) r/w 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC. However, the Advocate General, Haryana, on 24.11.2023, opined to respondent No. 3 that mere registration of FIR, filing of Final Report, or pendency of writ proceedings does not disentitle an officer from promotion (Annexure A-12).
4. The respondent No.2 again sought comments from respondent No.3 on 17.01.2025 regarding whether the applicant should be treated as charge-sheeted (Annexure A-13). Respondent No.3 furnished the clarification on 07.03.2025, reiterating that since charges have not been framed, the applicant and similarly situated officers remained eligible for promotion in terms of the Advocate General's opinion (Annexure A-14). The State Government reaffirmed this stand on 24.03.2025, stating that no criminal proceedings can be said to be pending against any of the eligible officers within the meaning of Regulation 5(5) of the Regulations, 1955 (Annexure A-15). However, on 11.05.2025, the Ld. Solicitor General opined that filing of a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. amounts to filing of a charge-sheet as stipulated in Regulation 5(5) of the Regulations, 1955 (Annexure A-16). As a result, in June 2025, respondent No.3 revised Annexures 4.1(A&B) and 4.2 and treated officers, including the applicant, as charge-sheeted for the purpose of Regulation 5(5) of the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 5- O.A. No. 753/2025 1955 (Annexure A-17) and sent it to respondent no. 2 UPSC. The applicant approached the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court by way of filing CRM-M-29542 of 2025, titled as Jagdeep Dhanda Vs. State of Haryana and Others, seeking quashing of FIR No. 20, dated 18.10.2005 and the final report dated 30.06.2023. The Hon'ble High Court issued notice of motion and in the meanwhile operation and effect of the impugned charge sheet, dated 30.06.2023, has been stayed qua the petitioner, thereby resulting in restoration of status quo ante resulting in no impediment in consideration of the applicant for regular promotion (Annexure A-18).
5. On 11.07.2025, the Hon'ble High Court stayed the operation and effect of the impugned charge sheet dated 30.06.2023 qua the applicant, thereby restoring the status quo ante and removing any impediment to his consideration for regular promotion (Annexure A-18). The applicant immediately submitted a representation on the same day along with the certified copy of the stay order, requesting that he not be treated as charge-sheeted and that his candidature be considered unconditionally in the SCM scheduled for 14.07.2025 relating to Select Lists 2020-2024 (Annexure A-19). Subsequently, on 17.07.2025, and again on 18.07.2025 and 21.07.2025, the applicant sought copies of the proposals and correspondence exchanged between the State Government and UPSC, but no information has been supplied to him till date (Annexure A-20 and Annexure A-21).
6. In these circumstances, the applicant asserts that he has been denied his fundamental right to fair consideration, and the conduct of the respondents in ignoring the binding order of the Hon'ble High Court 6- O.A. No. 753/2025 order is bordering is highly improper and unlawful. Hence, the present Original Application has been filed on 23.07.2025.
7. The applicant contended that under the First Proviso to Regulation 5(5) of the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, his name could not have been treated as provisional because the State Government has never withheld his integrity certificate, nor is any departmental proceeding pending against him. In view of Explanation- 1, proceedings can be treated as pending only when a charge-sheet has actually been issued to the officer or filed in a court as the case may be. Although a Final Report dated 30.06.2023 was filed before the Ld. Sessions Court, Hisar, but its operation and effect stood stayed by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court vide order dated 11.07.2025 (Annexure A-18), thereby creating a legal fiction that no charge-sheet exists for any purpose, including Regulation 5(5), and consequently the applicant should not have been treated as charge-sheeted. It has been pleaded that the word ―actually‖ in the Regulation is meant to prevent misuse or mala fide investigations intended to block entry of eligible officers from IAS induction, and once the stay order dated 11.07.2025 came to the knowledge of respondent No.3, he ought to have revised the applicant's status accordingly. The applicant further contended that although the Ld. Solicitor General considered the Final Report as equivalent to a charge-sheet (Annexure A-15), but the detailed opinion of the Ld. Advocate General, Haryana, in line with DoPT instructions dated 27.10.1999, clarifies that a person is treated as charge-sheeted only when charges are framed by a court. The applicant alleged that a sequence of mala fide actions, delays, and extraneous consideration such as postponement of the 08.12.2022 meeting, misuse of a vigilance 7- O.A. No. 753/2025 report, and filing of a half-baked Final Repor were orchestrated by vested interests to block his entry into the IAS. He asserted that even the Ld. Advocate General held on 24.11.2023 that filing of a Final Report under Section 173 Cr. PC creates no bar under Regulation 5(5). The Hon'ble High Court's stay order dated 11.07.2025 neutralized all consequences of the Final Report, there remained no ground to treat him as ‗provisional' in the 14.07.2025 Selection Committee Meeting. He lastly submits that, applying the same principle as the second proviso to Regulation 5(3), since he was eligible and no charge-sheet existed when the selection meeting for 2020-2021 was originally scheduled on 08.12.2022, any later event cannot be used to deprive him of consideration for promotion in 2025.
8. The applicant has placed reliance upon judgments in the case of B. Shanmugam Vs. Karthik Dasari Deputy Director of Enforcement Ministry of Finance (WP No. 12159 of 2022 decided on 01.09.2022 by Hon'ble Madras High Court), Ravi S. Naik vs. Union of India and Others (Civil Appeal No. 2904/1993 decided on 09.02.1994 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India), V.P. Seth Vs. State of M.P. and Others (SLP (Criminal) No. 3105/2000 decided on 14.02.2003 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India), Lalsai Khunte Vs. Nirmal Sinha and Others (Civil Appeal No 4055 of 2006 decided on 27.02.2007 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India) and Nihar Ranjan Choudhar Vs. State of Odisha and another (WP © No. 21793 of 2021 decided on 06.11.2023 by Hon'ble Orissa High Court)
9. The respondent no. 1 filed short reply contesting the claim of the applicant and stated that promotion to the Indian Administrative 8- O.A. No. 753/2025 Service is governed by the constitutional and statutory framework under Articles 309 and 312 of the Constitution, the All India Services Act, 1951, the IAS (Recruitment) Rules, 1954, and the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955. It is stated that the Union Public Service Commission (Respondent No. 2), being a constitutional authority under Articles 315 and 320, has the final say in matters relating to recruitment and suitability for appointment to the IAS, and the Central Government only performs the statutory functions assigned to it without interfering with UPSC's decisions.
10. Respondent No. 1 further submitted that the process for preparation of Select Lists for the years 2020 to 2024 was duly completed in accordance with the Regulations. Vacancies were properly determined, the Selection Committee met on 14.07.2025, considered all eligible officers including the applicant, and made its recommendations. These recommendations were approved by the State Government and UPSC, leading to the notification of the Select Lists on 04.08.2025. It is specifically stated that the entire process was fair, transparent and strictly in compliance with the Regulations. It has been submitted that the applicant was placed in the ‗provisional' category because Regulation 5(5) mandates such classification, when criminal or departmental proceedings are pending. Explanation-I to Regulation 5(5) clearly provides that proceedings shall be treated as pending once a charge- sheet is filed before a competent court. Since a final report/charge-sheet dated 30.06.2023 had been filed against the applicant, the Selection Committee had no discretion and was legally bound to include him ‗provisionally'.
9- O.A. No. 753/2025
11. Respondent No. 1 submitted that although the Hon'ble High Court, by order dated 11.07.2025, stayed the ―operation and effect‖ of the charge-sheet, the stay does not quash the proceedings. The charge- sheet continues to exist in the eyes of law for the purpose of Regulation 5(5), and judicial precedents hold that even stayed criminal proceedings create a bar against unconditional promotion or appointment. The stay only suspends further action; it does not eliminate the fact of pendency. It has also been submitted that inclusion in the Select List, especially on a provisional basis, does not confer any right to appointment. Regulations 7(4) and 9(1) require that an officer placed provisionally be appointed only after UPSC declares the inclusion unconditional, which can happen only when the State Government issues an integrity certificate confirming the absence of any pending proceedings. Since criminal proceedings are still pending, the State Government cannot issue such a certificate and UPSC cannot convert the applicant's status to unconditional.
12. It has been stated that the applicant's representations and the Hon'ble High Court's stay order were duly considered by the Selection Committee. However, because the statutory scheme expressly requires that filing of a charge-sheet be treated as ―pending proceedings,‖ the Committee could not ignore the bar and declare the applicant eligible. The authorities are bound by law and have no discretion to dilute or bypass the requirements of the Regulations.
13. Respondent No. 1 denied all allegations of malafide, conspiracy or extraneous considerations. It is stated that each step of the selection process from determination of vacancies to convening the Committee, 10- O.A. No. 753/2025 approval by competent authorities and final notification was undertaken strictly in accordance with the statutory provisions. The Central Government has no authority to alter UPSC's assessment of suitability or its decision to classify the applicant as provisional. Respondent No. 1 lastly submitted that the Select Lists remain valid until 31.12.2025, giving the applicant adequate time to seek alteration of his status, if he obtains final clearance in the criminal case. His demand for immediate unconditional inclusion or appointment is therefore premature and contrary to the statutory scheme governing promotions to the IAS.
14. The respondent no. 2 filed written statement, stating that the Selection Committee Meeting for preparation of the year-wise Select Lists for 2020 to 2024 for promotion of State Civil Service officers to the Indian Administrative Service of the Haryana Cadre was convened on 14.07.2025. In respect of the applicant, the State Government informed the Committee that a criminal proceeding, arising out of a charge-sheet dated 30.06.2023, was pending against him. It was further intimated through communication dated 12.07.2025 that the applicant had approached the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CRM-M- 29542 of 2025, titled Jagdeep Dhanda v. State of Haryana and Others, wherein the Hon'ble High Court, by order dated 11.07.2025, had stayed the operation and effect of the said chargesheet qua the applicant. It has been stated that the order dated 11.07.2025 passed by the Hon'ble High Court was placed before the Selection Committee. Upon taking cognizance of the said order, the Committee recommended the applicant's name for inclusion in the Select Lists of 2020 to 2024, but only provisionally, observing that the charge-sheet dated 30.06.2023 had merely been stayed and not quashed, and therefore the 11- O.A. No. 753/2025 criminal proceeding was still to be treated as pending. The Respondent No. 2 further pointed out that in the same matter, charge-sheet dated 30.06.2023 had also been filed against seven other SCS officers, and all such officers were likewise included in the Select Lists provisionally, subject to their clearance in the pending criminal proceedings.
15. The Respondent No. 2 submitted that under the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, inclusion of an officer in the Select List must be treated as ‗provisional' if the State Government withholds the integrity certificate or if any departmental or criminal proceedings are pending against him, or if any adverse material rendering him unsuitable has come to the notice of the State Government. It has been stated that the Select List remains in force until 31 December of the year in which the Committee meets, or for sixty days from the date of approval by the Commission, whichever is later. The Promotion Regulations further provide that an officer initially included provisionally may be granted unconditional inclusion only when the proceedings pending against him are concluded and he is exonerated, or the proceedings are set aside or quashed by the competent court or by action of the State Government pursuant to such direction. The Respondent No. 2 further submitted that the recommendations of the Selection Committee were approved by the Commission on 01.08.2025 and were thereafter acted upon by the Government of India, DoP&T, through Notification dated 04.08.2025. The Select Lists, so notified are valid until 31.12.2025. On the above grounds, the Respondent No. 2 submitted that there is no merit in the Original Application, and the same deserves to be dismissed. Reliance has been placed upon a decision dated 04.03.2025 of Full Bench of 12- O.A. No. 753/2025 Principal Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shive Keshari Singh Vs. Union of India and Others (O.A. No. 1505/2023)
16. The respondent no. 3 also filed written statement contesting the claim of the applicant. It has been stated therein that the applicant had been appointed to the Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch) on 04.09.2002 on the basis of the written examinations held by the Haryana Public Service Commission between 25.12.2000 and 07.01.2001 for 14 posts of HCS (EB) and 50 posts of Allied Services. It was stated that soon after this selection, a writ petition (CWP No. 15390 of 2002) was filed by an MLA, alleging favoritism and nepotism in the entire recruitment process. The Hon'ble High Court, by order dated 26.09.2007, directed the Commission to produce the record of the selection. In parallel, FIR No. 20 dated 18.10.2005 under the Prevention of Corruption Act and relevant IPC sections was registered by the Anti- Corruption Bureau, Hisar, to investigate allegations of widespread manipulation by the then Chairman and Members of the Commission in selections conducted between 2001 and 2004. It was further stated that pursuant to the High Court's order dated 14.01.2008, the record of 27 candidates, including the petitioner, was produced, and inspection was permitted to the counsel. Based on this inspection, two reports dated 01.02.2008 and 15.02.2008 were submitted before the Court, which pointed out multiple irregularities, including different handwriting within the applicant's answer sheets, overwriting, and attempts appearing to have been added subsequently. These findings formed part of the background against which the applicant's service record continued to be monitored by the authorities.
13- O.A. No. 753/2025
17. Respondent No. 3 explained that when the proposals for preparation of the Select Lists for promotion to the IAS for the years 2020-2021, and later 2020-2024, were being considered, the office of the Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau, by its letter dated 08.09.2022, reported that the HCS (Executive Branch) and Allied Services examinations of 2001 and 2004 had been vitiated due to extensive manipulations. These manipulations included unauthenticated overwriting, changes of marks, different inks used by examiners, disclosure of identity by candidates, answers written on crossed-out pages, and different handwriting in different answer sheets of the same candidate. It was stated that the investigation clearly established that the entire recruitment process had been conducted in a predetermined, biased, arbitrary, corrupt and illegal manner. It was further submitted that promotions to the IAS were governed by the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955. A legal issue arose as to whether a police report filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. amounted to a ―charge-sheet‖ within the meaning of Regulation 5(5). The Advocate General, Haryana, initially opined on 29.08.2024 that a final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. could not be equated with a charge framed by a competent court. However, the Union Public Service Commission obtained a contrary legal opinion from the Ld. Solicitor General of India dated 11.05.2025, which clarified that for the purpose of Regulation 5(5), the expression ―charge-sheet‖ referred to the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The Ld. Solicitor General relied on the settled position of law, including the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh Bhullar vs. Union of India, holding that such a report was commonly and legally understood as a charge-sheet.
14- O.A. No. 753/2025
18. Respondent No. 3 then submitted that on the basis of the legal opinion of the Ld. Solicitor General, the State Government revised Annexure 4.1(B) in the proposal sent to the UPSC, and the date of filing of charge-sheet was specified as 30.06.2023 instead of ―Nil.‖ It was pointed out that although the Hon'ble High Court, vide order dated 11.07.2025 in CRM-M-29542-2025, stayed the operation and effect of the charge-sheet qua the applicant, the charge-sheet had not been quashed. Therefore, the criminal proceedings continued to be treated as pending under the Regulations. The said order of the Hon'ble High Court and the petitioner's representation were duly forwarded to the UPSC before the Selection Committee Meeting scheduled on 14.07.2025. It was further submitted that the Selection Committee, after considering all materials including the High Court's interim order, included the petitioner's name ‗provisionally' in the Select List for the year 2020 subject to clearance in the criminal proceedings. The Committee took the view that since the charge-sheet was only stayed, the matter continued to be pending. It was also noted that seven other State Civil Service officers, who were facing charge-sheets filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., were similarly included provisionally in the Select Lists for the years 2020 to 2024.
19. Respondent No. 3 stated that the minutes of the Selection Committee Meeting held on 14.07.2025 were approved by the State Government and then forwarded to the Union of India for their observations. The Department of Personnel & Training, Government of India, thereafter communicated its views to the UPSC. Upon considering all inputs, the UPSC approved the recommendations of the Selection Committee without any modification, as conveyed vide letter dated 15- O.A. No. 753/2025 01.08.2025. In conclusion, Respondent No. 3 asserted that the petitioner had no vested right to unconditional inclusion or promotion while criminal proceedings were pending against him, and therefore the relief sought in the application was wholly without merit and liable to be dismissed.
20. We have gone through the pleadings, perused the material available on record and considered the rival submissions of learned counsel and law cited by them.
21. The question for consideration herein is as to whether, in view of the Hon'ble High Court's order dated 11.07.2025 staying the operation and effect of the charge-sheet dated 30.06.2023, the applicant's case could still be treated as one involving ―pending criminal proceedings‖ under Regulation 5(5) of the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, so as to justify his inclusion only ‗provisionally' in the Select Lists for the years 2020-2022, and whether the respondents acted lawfully and fairly in maintaining the applicant's provisional status despite the stay order and the surrounding factual circumstances.
22. The undisputed facts of the case are that the Haryana Public Service Commission conducted the written examination for recruitment to 14 posts for Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch) and 50 posts for other Allied Services between 25.12.2000 and 07.01.2001, pursuant to which the applicant was appointed to the Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch) on 04.09.2002. In the year 2002, a writ petition (CWP No. 15390 of 2002) was filed before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court alleging irregularities, favoritism, and nepotism in the said recruitment process. During the pendency of the matter, FIR 16- O.A. No. 753/2025 No. 20 dated 18.10.2005 under sections 13 (i)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 B of IPC was registered by the State Vigilance Bureau/Anti Corruption Bureau, Hisar, relating to alleged manipulations and irregularities in the examinations conducted between 2001 and 2004. Pursuant to the High Court's directions on 14.01.2008, the records of several selected candidates, including that of the applicant, were produced for inspection. Two inspection reports were thereafter submitted in February 2008, inter alia recording discrepancies such as differences in handwriting and post-evaluation alterations in answer sheets. The first inspection report dated 01.02.2008 qua applicant mentioned essay and GK answer sheet were in different handwritings. Ultimately, the Vigilance Bureau filed charge sheet in the court of Ld. Sessions Judge, Hissar, wherein the applicant has been enlarged on bail along with other accused persons, and the trial is pending.
23. Subsequently, when the State Government initiated the process for preparation of the Select Lists for the years 2020-2021 for induction of State Civil Service officers into the IAS, the applicant's name was included in the proposals forwarded to the UPSC on 21.07.2022. In September 2022, the Anti Corruption Bureau communicated its findings vide letter dated 08.09.2022 regarding large-scale irregularities in the HCS selections of 2001 and 2004, including manipulation of marks and procedural violations. A Selection Committee Meeting to prepare the select lists of the years 2020-2021 for promotion from SCS officer (Haryana) to IAS scheduled for 08.12.2022 was consequently postponed, on the request of respondent no. 3 (State of Haryana) along with forwarding of letter dated 08.09.2022 of the DG, ACB (Vigilance 17- O.A. No. 753/2025 Bureau) Haryana. During this period, the respondent no. 3, the State Government sought advice of the Ld. Advocate General, Haryana, on whether a final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. amounted to a ―charge- sheet‖ for the purposes of Regulation 5(5) of the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955. The Ld. Advocate General opined on 29.08.2024 that a charge-sheet, in the context of the Regulations, would mean a formal charge framed by a competent court and not merely the filing of a police report under Section 173 Cr. PC. Pursuant to the advice of Advocate General, Haryana, a revised proposal/material for the Select List of 2020-2024 has been sent to respondent no. 2 on 07.03.2025 wherein the name of applicant along with others has been mentioned in Annexure 4.1 (B) regarding pending criminal proceedings against the officers but in the column of ‗Date of charge-sheet issued, it was mentioned ‗Nil'. Later, however, the UPSC sought legal opinion from the Ld. Solicitor General of India, who opined that a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. constitutes a charge-sheet for the purpose of Regulation 5(5) of the IAS Regulations, 1955.
24. In light of the Ld. Solicitor General's opinion, the State (Respondent No. 3) revised its proposal and reported the filing of the charge-sheet dated 30.06.2023 against the applicant. Meanwhile, the applicant approached the Hon'ble High Court by filing CRM-M-29542 of 2025 seeking quashment of FIR 20 dated 18.10.2005. On 11.07.2025, the Hon'ble High Court stayed the operation and effect of the charge- sheet dated 30.06.2023 for the sake of convenience the same is reproduced as under:-
18- O.A. No. 753/2025
―5. Learned senior counsel further contends that the entire sequence shows that it is only to exclude the petitioner from the process of selection to IAS cadre that he has been included as an accused in the challan/charge-sheet, though none of the ingredients of the alleged offences are established against him. In fact, for the purpose of preparing the charge sheet, the State had moved an application, CM-2251-CWP-2022 before the Division Bench in pending PIL seeking permission to get access to the answer sheets for sending the same to the FSL for examination. The application remained pending for consideration for 17.07.2023, but the charge sheet in the case was filed in a hurry on 30.06.2023 with the oblique motive. He also contends that the permission sought by way of the said application has still not been granted by the Court, as borne out from the reply filed by the respondents itself. Therefore, there was no material before the investigating agency to conclude against the petitioner, nor any has been referred to. He has also relied upon the opinion given by the Advocate General, dated 24.11.2023, Annexure P-17, in the matter that the said DIR has no bearing on consideration of the select list for promotion to IAS cadre. Based thereupon, the petitioner was issued integrity certificate for the purpose and the same was sent to the UPSC also.
6. Learned State counsel has not been able to dispute any of the aforementioned facts. She submits that the petitioner remains an accused in the charge-sheet filed, and, therefore, has no right to be considered for promotion.19- O.A. No. 753/2025
7. Notice of motion for 22.08.2025.
8. Learned State counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondents/State, and seeks time to file a detailed reply to the petition.
9. In the meanwhile, operation and effect of the impugned charge-sheet dated 30.06.2023, qua the petitioner shall remained stayed.‖ The said stay order along with representation of applicant was sent to the UPSC prior to the Selection Committee Meeting held on 14.07.2025. The Selection Committee, after considering the stay order, included the applicant's name in the Select Lists for 2020 provisionally, subject to clearance in the criminal proceedings, treating the criminal proceedings as pending. Seven other officers, who were also facing charge-sheets under Section 173 Cr.P.C., were similarly included ‗provisionally'. The recommendations of the Selection Committee were subsequently approved by the respondent no. 3 and thereafter respondent no. 1 has sent its observations upon the minutes of Selection Committee Meeting to Respondent No. 2, the UPSC finally approved the recommendations on 01.08.2025, and thereafter acted upon by the Government of India.
25. The thrust of the argument of learned Sr. counsel for the applicant is on the interpretation of 1st proviso and Explanation I to Regulation 5(5) of the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that the name of the officer included in the select list may only be treated as 20- O.A. No. 753/2025 provisional, if the State Government withholds the integrity certificate in respect of officer or any proceedings viz. departmental or criminal are pending against the officer. That situation will render the officer unsuitable for appointment to the service. He further argued that as per the Explanation -1 below the proviso to the Regulation 5(5), the proceedings are to be treated as pending, only if, a charge sheet has actually been issued to the officer or filed in court as the case may be. In case of applicant, neither the State Government has withheld the integrity certificate not the departmental proceedings are pending against him. The final report dated 30.06.2023 under Section 173 Cr.PC has been filed by the State Vigilance Bureau (now ACB, Hisar) in the court of Ld. Sessions Judge, Hisar. However, in view of stay of operation and effect of final report dated 30.06.2023 by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 11.07.2025 in CRM (M) 29542/2025, none of the circumstances enumerated under Regulation 5(5) existed qua the applicant to include in the list ‗provisional list', therefore, the applicant is entitled to be included in the select list unconditional and not as ‗provisional'.
26. From the perusal of the relevant provisions of Regulation 5(5) of IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation 1955, we find that the contention of the applicant is based on the misinterpretation of the Regulation 5(5) of the Regulations, 1955. The interpretation given by the applicant is unsuitable and contrary to the settled principle of law. From the conjoint reading of the first proviso and Explanation-I, it is crystal clear that the proceedings should be treated as pending only if a charge sheet has actually been issued to the officer of filed in a Court. The language implied in the Regulation is without any ambiguity. 21- O.A. No. 753/2025 Moreover, Explanation nowhere states about charges having been framed by the Trial Court. The Ld. Senior Counsel wanted to interpret the regulation in such a way, which is not the intendment of regulation. The stay of operation and effect of charge sheet does not mean that the impact of charge sheet has been wiped. The scope of legislation or intention cannot be enlarged when the language of the regulation is plain and unambiguous. It can't add or subtract words to a statute or read something, which is not there. Regulation 5(5) of the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, uses the mandatory term ―shall‖, providing that the name of an officer included in the Select List shall be treated as provisional if any criminal proceedings are pending against him. Explanation-I clarifies that proceedings are to be treated as pending only when a charge-sheet has actually been issued or filed in a court. This explanation does not create an exception, but instead lays down the threshold condition for determining pendency. Once this threshold is crossed -- as admittedly occurred in the present case with the filing of the Final Report dated 30.06.2023 -- the proceedings are deemed to be pending until finally concluded. The use of the word ―actually‖ emphasizes that the physical act of filing the charge-sheet triggers the mandatory consequence of provisional classification. Any subsequent stay of the operation of the charge-sheet does not negate the fact that it has been actually filed and that criminal proceedings are actually pending before the competent criminal court.
27. It is well settled legal proposition that the impact of the interim order passed by the Hon'ble Court of law are temporary in nature till the matter is finally adjudicated by the court on merits. On the basis of interim protection granted by the Hon'ble High Court, vide order dated 22- O.A. No. 753/2025 11.07.2025, the applicant cannot claim as a right to be included in the select list unconditional. We find force in the argument of Respondents No. 1 and 2 that they are not bound by the interim order as they were not party to the petition preferred by the applicant seeking quashment of charge sheet (final report) in exercise of his right to avail the remedy in criminal jurisdiction.
28. The contention of the applicant is that as the operation and effect of the final report dated 30.06.2023 was stayed by the Hon'ble High Court, therefore, a legal fiction is created to imply that the existence of final report dated 30.06.2023 is obliterated for all intent and purposes and it has to be taken as if no charge sheet has been issued or filed in the court as long as the stay order is operative. In our view, the said contention of the applicant is totally misconceived. It is an admitted fact that the charge sheet has actually been filed by the Vigilance Bureau, after thorough investigation, is pending trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Hisar, wherein the Learned Court has taken cognizance of offences and the matter was posted for framing of charges before the interim order. In view of this factual position, no legal fiction can be created with regard to the non-existence of the final report. Any interpretation contrary to the legislative intent is liable to be disapproved. The intendment of the legislature is very much clear.
29. Learned Sr. Counsel for the applicant also argued that a copy of stay order dated 11.07.2025 passed by the Hon'ble High Court was communicated to the Selection Committee by way of representation through respondent no. 3, stating that in terms of stay on operation and effect of the impugned charge sheet dated 30.06.2023 qua the 23- O.A. No. 753/2025 applicant, resulted in restoration of status quo ante, therefore, there is no impediment in consideration of the applicant for regular promotion. From the reply of respondent no. 2, we find that the Selection Committee has taken cognizance of the interim order provided by the applicant through respondent no. 3 as is evident from the minutes of meeting and after meticulous examination of the matter, the Selection Committee observed that the charge sheet has only been stayed by the Hon'ble High Court and not quashed, therefore, the criminal proceedings was treated as pending, which, according to us is right and proper decision taken by Respondent No. 2 in accordance with law. The factum of pendency of charge sheet before the learned Sessions Judge, Hissar, is indisputable and it is also an admitted position that the charge sheet filed against the applicant has not been quashed by the Hon'ble High Court. Therefore, the decision taken by the respondent no. 2 to include the name of the applicant in the select list of 2020-2022 ‗provisionally' is in accordance with the Regulations governing the field. By doing so, there has not been infringement to any right of applicant. The Select List prepared by the Selection Committee has been approved by the Commission and further acted upon by the respondent no. 1 vide notification dated 04.08.2025. If, the argument of applicant is accepted by us, then it would render regulation 5(5) redundant and frustrate the regulations. The interim protection granted by the Hon'ble High court in CRM-M- 29542/2025 with regard to pendency of criminal trial cannot be equated as issuance of vigilance certificate by the respondent no. 3. The foremost requirement of the vigilance certificate in service matter before declaration of nomination unconditional cannot be diluted on the basis of interim order of Hon'ble High Court passed in the criminal 24- O.A. No. 753/2025 proceedings. The suitability and integrity are two different aspects to be considered for appointment.
30. The similar issue came before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh Bhullar and Another Vs. Union of India and Others, 2006 SCC (L&S) 659 wherein the Hon'ble Court, while allowing the appeal has observed and held as under:-
"7. In the impugned order the High Court noticed that the criminal case was pending against the respondent 5 under Sections 120B, 342/365 IPC. The High Court also noticed that the challan was presented in the Court on 1.7.2000. The High Court, however, in our view, committed the fundamental error by misinterpreting the explanation 1 to Regulation 5(5) and Regulation 7(3) of Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955 (in short the Regulation). The High Court noticed that the chargesheet was filed in the court on 1.7.2000. The High Court also noticed that Explanation 1 to Regulation 5(5) makes it clear that the proceeding shall be treated as pending only after chargesheet has actually been issued to the officer or filed in a court, as the case may be. Having noticed that the chargesheet has been filed in the court on 1.7.2000 and Explanation 1 to Regulation 5(5), the High Court, has erroneously came to the conclusion as under:
"We are of the considered opinion that a bare perusal of the Explanation 1 to Regulation 5(5) makes it abundantly clear that criminal proceedings could only be held to be pending against the Officer if the charge has been framed by the trial court. In the present case, undoubtedly, the charge has not been framed."
(emphasis supplied) On the aforesaid reasoning the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition.
8. Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, learned senior counsel, rightly contended that the whole controversy is with regard to the interpretation of Explanation 1 to Regulation 5(5) and Regulation 7(3). To appreciate the controversy in proper perspective, Regulation 5(5) and Explanation 1 are quoted below:-
"5. Preparation of a list of Suitable Officers:-
* * * * 5(5) The list shall be prepared by including the required number of names first from amongst the officers finally classified as "Outstanding" then from amongst those similarly classified as "Very Good" and thereafter from 25- O.A. No. 753/2025 amongst those similarly classified as "Good" and the order of names inter-se within each category shall be in the order of their seniority in the State Police Service.
Provided that the name of an officer so included in the list shall be treated as provisional if the State Government withholds the integrity certificate in respect of such an officer or any proceedings departmental or criminal are pending against him or anything adverse against him which renders him unsuitable for appointment to the service has come to the notice of the State Government.
Provided further while preparing yearwise select list for more than one year pursuant to the 2nd proviso to sub regulation (1), the officer included provisionally in any of the select list so prepared shall be considered for inclusion on the select list of subsequent year in addition to the normal consideration zone and incase he is found fit for inclusion in the suitability list for that year on a provisional basis such inclusion shall be in addition to the normal size of the select list determined by the Central Government for such year.
EXPLANATION 1: The proceedings shall be treated as pending only if a charge-sheet has actually been issued to the Officer or filed in a Court as the case may be."
(emphasis supplied)
9. Explanation 1 as quoted above will make it crystal clear that the proceedings shall be treated as pending only if a chargesheet has actually been issued to the officer or filed in a Court. The language employed in the statute is unambiguous. The Explanation nowhere states about charges having been framed by the Trial Court. The High Court, in our view, erroneously read something into the Explanation, which is not provided by the Regulation. There is no concept of charge being framed by the Trial Court in the context of Explanation 1 of the Regulation.
10. Explanation 1 to Regulation 5(5) is further clarified in Regulation 7(3). Regulation 7 speaks of select list. Regulation 7(3) reads as under:
"7 (3). The list as finally approved by the Commission shall from the Select List of the members of the State Police Service. Provided that if an officer whose name is included in the Select List is, after such inclusion, issued with a charge-sheet or a charge-sheet is filed against him in a Court of Law, his name in the Select List shall be deemed to be provisional."
11. A conjoint reading of explanation 1 to Regulation 5(5) and proviso to Regulation 7(3) speaks about the chargesheet being filed against an officer in a court of law. There is no concept of charges being framed under the Regulation.
26- O.A. No. 753/2025
XXXX XXX
16. Filing of chargesheet is preceded by an indepth investigation. Charges are filed in Court when the prima facie case is established in course of the investigation. The intendment of the Legislature is that a person who is charged with a criminal offence in which charge is filed in court and the case being pending for trial, that too against a police officer, the inclusion of such officer in the list shall be treated as provisional. The dangerous interpretation assigned to the statute by the High Court would negate the intendment of the Legislature. In our view, the High Court has committed grave fundamental error of law and the same is unsustainable in law."
The ratio of judgment in Gurpreet Singh Bhullar's case (supra) is squarely applicable to the case of applicant.
31. According to us, in view of the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in Gurpreet Singh Bhullar's case (supra), we find no substance in the argument of the applicant. The Principal Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shive Keshari Singh Vs. Union of India and Others (OA No. 1505/2023 decided on 04.03.2025), dealt with the identical controversy relating to interpretation of Explanation-I of Regulation 5(5) and Regulation 7(3) of Regulations, 1955 and while applying the ratio of Gurpreet Singh Bhullar's case (supra), it has been held that as under:-
"16. Learned counsel for the parties have also agreed that the issue referred has also been answered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh Bhullar & Ors (supra). A conjoint reading of Explanation-I to Regulation 1955 speaks about the charge sheet being filed against an officer in a court of law in criminal proceedings said to be pending and there is no concept of charges 27- O.A. No. 753/2025 being framed under the Regulations, 1955 to treat proceedings pending.‖
32. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalsai Khunte Vs. Nirmal Sinha and Others, (Civil Appeal No. 4055 of 2006 decided on 27.02.2007). The ratio of the aforesaid judgment is not applicable to the facts of the instant case as in the relied upon case election of the applicant to the Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly was set aside on the basis of conviction, whereas in the instant case none of the respondents have found or declared the applicant unsuitable to the service of IAS cadre in Haryana. Even, he has been included in select list 2020-22 (provisionally) by the respondents no 1 and 2 on the basis of the panel suggested by the respondent no. 3 (Haryana), subject to clearance from the criminal proceedings, which is only stayed on the petition of applicant.
33. Similarly, the case of Nihar Ranjan Choudhar Vs. State of Odisha and Another (WP(c) No. 21793 of 2021 is distinguishable as induction of State Service Officer to the IAS cadre is covered by the Regulation 1955 and the respondents have considered the case of the applicant in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Regulations, 1955.
34. The applicant has also placed reliance on legal opinion given by the learned AG, Haryana on 24.11.2003. However, the learned Solicitor General of India has concluded the legal opinion as under:- 28- O.A. No. 753/2025
"9. So far as the second query is concerned, further course of action is also very well settled by catena of judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other Courts. Once the State Government prepared a list of candidates falling within the zone of consideration for being promoted from the State Service to All India Service, it is always open to promote such persons subject to their fulfilling other eligibility criteria.
10. However, the candidates in the zone of consideration against whom a charge sheet is filed in the court as referred above) or any disciplinary proceedings are pending which may disentitles them for being promoted, the promotion /non promotion of such candidates shall have to be kept in a 'sealed cover' awaiting final adjudication of criminal trial or departmental enquiry.
11. So far as candidates in the select list / zone of consideration against whom there is no such impediment, can always be promoted. Such candidates, however, should be promoted at the earliest since non promotion of candidates having no impediment of charge sheet in a criminal case or departmental proceedings results in stagnation and dissatisfaction amongst competent officers. The State Government is also deprived of the services of such officers for no reason. Only because the list contains some officers who have the impediment against being promoted can never be a reason for not promoting the candidates within the zone of consideration who have no such impediment.
I opine accordingly. It is my emphatic advice that the process of candidates who are not facing any impediment must 29- O.A. No. 753/2025 be completed by the UPSC and the State Government so as to avoid litigations being filed by any dissatisfied candidate."
In our opinion, the learned SGI has rightly and legally opined on the issue in view of the ratio of Gurpreet Singh Bhullar's case (supra), which has not been referred to by the learned AG, Haryana. Therefore, we differ from the legal opinion of learned AG, Haryana. Moreover, in view of the reply preferred by the respondent no. 3 (State of Haryana), the legal opinion obtained by respondent no. 3 has no value.
35. Accordingly, we do not find any illegality or irregularity by any of the respondents in considering the name of the applicant for select list 2020-22 ‗provisionally'. In view of the foregoing reasons as well as legal position, the Original Application lacks merits and is dismissed as such. No costs.
(RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI) (SURESH KUMAR BATRA) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) Dated: 05.12.2025 ‗mw'