Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Naveen Kumar vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes on 26 September, 2025
1
O.A.No.170/00283/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00283/2025
Order Reserved on: 24.9.2025
Date of Order: 26.09.2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
Naveen Kumar S/o Shri Gorakh Singh,
aged about 43 years, O.S.,
Income-tax Office, Udupi-576103. ...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr.J.Bhaskar Reddy)
Vs.
1. Union of India, through the Finance Secretary,
Ministry of finance,
North Block, New Delhi-110001.
2. Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
Karnataka & Goa Region,
Queens Road,
Bangalore-560001. .... Respondents
(By Advocate Shri.Vishnu Bhat for Respondents)
SHAINEY VIJU
SHAINEBangalore
CAT
Y VIJU 2025.09.26
11:05:07+05'30'
2
O.A.No.170/00283/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
ORDER
PER: DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
This Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 to seek the following reliefs:
"A) In view of the facts and grounds enumerated above, it is most respectfully prayed that the respondents may kindly be directed to grant promotion from 1.1.2025 to the post of AO Gr.III, with all consequential benefits along with interest for unexplained, inordinate delay. B) The respondents may be directed to produce relevant original records before the Tribunal for verification.
C) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which may be considered just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may be issued in favour of the applicant."
2. The reliefs are claimed on the grounds as mentioned in paragraphs 5(A) to (D) of the Original Application The brief facts of the case, as explained by the applicant, are that the applicant joined the service in Income-tax Karnataka as MTS on 19.3.2012. He was promoted as Sr. TA/OS from 15.1.2021 (Sr. TA post merged in OS). The applicant was due for promotion as Administrative Officer- Gr. III from 1.1.2025 along with his juniors. The applicant avers that he SHAINEY VIJU SHAINEBangalore CAT Y VIJU 2025.09.26 11:05:07+05'30' 3 O.A.No.170/00283/2025/CAT/BANGALORE was denied promotion on the illegal and arbitrary ground that no vigilance clearance was issued. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not granting promotion, the present OA is filed under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal's Act, 1985.
3. On notice, the official respondents have filed their reply statement and the applicant has filed his rejoinder.
4. The case came up for final hearing on 24.9.2024. Shri.J.Bhaskar Reddy for the applicant and Shri.Vishnu Bhat for respondents were present and heard.
5. We have carefully gone through the entire record and considered the rival contentions.
6. The basic facts of the case is not denied that the the Applicant joined the Income Tax Department, Karnataka & Goa region as Multi- Tasking Staff on 19.03.2012 and he was promoted as Tax Assistant on 01.04.2016 and further to the rank of Senior Tax Assistant on 15.01.2021 which was re-designated as Office Superintendent on 28.09.2024. The Applicant fulfilled the eligibility conditions prescribed in the Recruitment Rules for promotion to the cadre of Administrative Officer, Grade-III against the vacancy year 2025. SHAINEY VIJU SHAINEBangalore CAT Y VIJU 2025.09.26 11:05:07+05'30' 4 O.A.No.170/00283/2025/CAT/BANGALORE Accordingly, his name was forwarded to the Vigilance Section for consideration by the Departmental Promotion Committee, for promotion against the Vacancy Year 2025. The DPC meeting was held οη 24.12.2024. The Applicant was not given promotion as no Vigilance Clearance was issued and the findings of the DPC therefore was placed in sealed cover.
7. Issues to be decided:
Q.1. Whether respondent authorities were right in withholding vigilance clearance for the applicant for the DPC convened on 24.12.2024?
Q.2. Whether respondent authorities were right in keeping the case of the applicant in sealed cover in the DPC dated 24.12.2024 ?
Q.3. Whether respondent authorities were right in not considering the case of applicant for promotion along with 21 others on 1.1.2025, if the applicant was found otherwise eligible by the DPC ?
Q.4 If so what orders?
8. It is further mentioned that pursuant to the DPC order of SHAINEY VIJU SHAINEBangalore CAT promotion issued on 01.01.2025 in F.No.209(5)/2024-25/Pr.CCIT, 21 Y VIJU 2025.09.26 11:05:07+05'30' 5 O.A.No.170/00283/2025/CAT/BANGALORE promoted persons were directed to assume charge on promotion as Administrative Officer, Grade-III (Group B Gazetted) in their respective offices immediately and the applicant was denied promotion on the ground that no vigilance clearance was issued.
9. The case of the applicant is that on the date of the DPC as well as the promotion order, there was no pending disciplinary inquiry against him as no charge sheet was issued to him nor any criminal case was pending and he was also not under suspension and if these three conditions were not there as per the DoPT Office Memorandum F.No.22034/4/2012-Estt.(D) dated 2nd November, 2012 with subject, "Comprehensive review of instructions pertaining to vigilance clearance for promotion- regarding", the applicant contends that he was clearly eligible for promotion and his case could not have been put in the sealed cover.
10. Contra the respondents have claimed that as the disciplinary inquiry was contemplated against the applicant and he was served with a charge sheet for the inquiry on 6.1.2025, hence, as per the existing rules, the applicant's case had to be put in a sealed cover only. In their support the respondents have filed order of this Tribunal SHAINEY VIJU SHAINEBangalore CAT Y VIJU 2025.09.26 11:05:07+05'30' 6 O.A.No.170/00283/2025/CAT/BANGALORE in O.A No.170/202/2024 dated 7.3.2025 of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal.
11. We have gone through the case and we find that in that case the facts were very different. That promotion order was dated 21.8.2023 and his assumption of charge on the same date on 21.8.2023 and his promotion was on adhoc basis. In the said case there was incomplete information available in the office of the respondents as the police report furnished was showing that a criminal case was still pending against the applicant under investigation; whereas subsequent communication dated 12.10.2023 from the police authorities informed the respondents that after the completion of the investigation on 17.9.2022 itself charge sheets were filed and the case was remitted to the court. Hence, it was a case of lack of correct information with the authorities and for which partly the applicant was also responsible as he should have furnish the status of his criminal case and because of that the order went against the applicant therein and the said case made not be a precedence in this case.
12. Our attention is drawn to the O.M dated 2.11.2012 of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions which inter SHAINEY VIJU SHAINEBangalore CAT alia other things mentions the following:
Y VIJU 2025.09.26 11:05:07+05'30' 7 O.A.No.170/00283/2025/CAT/BANGALORE "Subject :Comprehensive review of instructions pertaining to vigilance clearance for promotion- regarding. Instructions issued vide O.M. No. 22012/1/99-Estt. (D) dated 25.10.2004 based on the O.M. No. 22011/4/1991-Estt. (A) dated 14.09.1992 (issued on the basis of procedure laid down by Supreme Court in K.V. Jankiraman case AIR 1991 SC 2010) makes it clear that vigilance clearance for promotion may be denied only in the following three circumstances:-
(i) Government servants under suspension;
(ii) Government servants in respect of whom a charge sheet has been issued and the disciplinary proceedings are pending; and
(iii) Government servants in respect of whom prosecution for a criminal charge is pending.
Withholding of vigilance clearance to a Government servant who is not under suspension or who has not been issued a charge sheet and the disciplinary proceedings are pending or against whom prosecution for criminal charge is not pending may not be legally tenable in view of the procedure laid down in the aforesaid O.Ms."
13. Simple reading of the above shows that vigilance clearance for promotion may be denied only in the following three conditions:
(i) Government servants under suspension;
(ii) Government servants in respect of whom a charge sheet has been issued and the disciplinary proceedings are pending; and SHAINEY VIJU SHAINEBangalore CAT Y VIJU 2025.09.26 11:05:07+05'30' 8 O.A.No.170/00283/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
(iii) Government servants in respect of whom prosecution for a criminal charge is pending.
14. As the facts of this case is based on the date of DPC on 24.12.2024, none of the three conditions existed for the applicant. The applicant was not under suspension, the applicant was not served with a charge sheet or no disciplinary proceedings were pending and the applicant was not facing prosecution for a criminal charge pending.
15. Hence, denial of the vigilance clearance by the respondent department on the premise that they had contemplated disciplinary inquiry or some preliminary inquiry was ongoing was illegal and not supported by the said O.M of DoPT dated 2.11.2012.
16. Further the applicant has cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Doly Loyi on 24.9.2024 (reported in 2024 INSC 729) in Civil Appeal No.8387 of 2013 and it is quoted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. K.V.Jankiraman, wherein it was held that sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after the charge memo/charge sheet is issued. The relevant extract is reproduced therein as follows:
SHAINEY VIJU SHAINEBangalore CAT Y VIJU 2025.09.26 11:05:07+05'30' 9 O.A.No.170/00283/2025/CAT/BANGALORE " 16. On the first question, viz., as to when for the purposes of the sealed cover procedure the disciplinary/criminal proceedings can be said to have commenced, the Full Bench of the Tribunal has held that it is only when a charge-memo in a disciplinary proceedings or a charge-sheet in a criminal prosecution is issued to the employee that it can be said that the departmental proceedings/criminal prosecution is initiated against the employee. The sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after the charge-
memo/charge-sheet (1991) 4 SCC 109 is issued. The pendency of preliminary investigation prior to that stage will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure. We are in agreement with the Tribunal on this point. The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-authorities that when there are serious allegations and it takes time to collect necessary evidence to prepare and issue charge-memo/charge-sheet, it would not be in the interest of the purity of administration to reward the employee with a promotion, increment etc. does not impress us. "
17. Further, the applicant has cited the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in V.K.Gupta v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi on 22.9.1992 (1992 (24) DRJ 271, 1992 RLR 500), wherein it was mentioned that the Division Bench of that Court has laid down that mere contemplation for initiating disciplinary proceedings is no bar for giving promotion to the petition. The bar is only when disciplinary proceedings have been initiated by issue of a charge- SHAINEY VIJU SHAINEBangalore CAT sheet.
Y VIJU 2025.09.26 11:05:07+05'30' 10 O.A.No.170/00283/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
18. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has not been able to show us any law to the contrary. Further, the applicant has cited the case of Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India and others v. K.V.Jankiraman and Others ((1991) 4 SCC109) which is one of the lead case on the subject.
19. We find that in the instant case as the DPC was held on 24.12.2024, and on that date there was no charge sheet given to the applicant which was only served on him only on 6.1.2025, hence, it was wrong on the part of the respondent department to withheld vigilance clearance on that day for him.
20. Further, it is not denied that the order of promotion was issued on 1.1.2025 much before the service of charge sheet on the applicant on 6.1.2025.
21. The respondents have pointed out to us that even though vigilance clearance is there on the date of the DPC, but after the DPC and before the date of issuance of order of promotion if the department finds that the concerned official is served with a charge sheet either in a criminal case or in a disciplinary inquiry, his case SHAINEY VIJU SHAINEBangalore CAT Y VIJU 2025.09.26 11:05:07+05'30' 11 O.A.No.170/00283/2025/CAT/BANGALORE may be kept in sealed cover which is mentioned in paragraph 7 of the O.M dated 2.11.2012 which reads as follows:
" The law on sealed cover based on the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India vs. K.V. Janakiraman etc. (AIR 1991 SC 2010), is by now well settled. The O.M. dated 14.9.92 confined the circumstances for adopting sealed cover to the three situations mentioned in para 2 of the said O.M. Even after recommendation of the DPC, but before appointment of the officer if any of the three situations arise, the case is deemed to have been kept in sealed cover by virtue of para 7 of the O.M. dated 14.9.92."
22. We examined the case of the applicant with reference to this paragraph and we find that this is not relevant in the case of the applicant. After the DPC on 24.12.2024 the order of promotion was issued on 1.1.2025 and the charge sheet to him was issued much later on 6.1.2025. Hence, it was improper for the respondent authorities to withhold the vigilance clearance to the applicant and to keep his case in a sealed cover in the DPC dated 24.12.2024 and not to promote the applicant along with others on 1.1.2025.
23. Our answer to the three questions framed are the following:
A.1. As the applicant was neither under suspension, nor facing charge sheet for a criminal case, or was served with a charge sheet for SHAINEY VIJU SHAINEBangalore CAT a disciplinary inquiry on 24.12.2024, hence, authorities were not right Y VIJU 2025.09.26 11:05:07+05'30' 12 O.A.No.170/00283/2025/CAT/BANGALORE to withhold vigilance clearance to the applicant for the DPC dated
24.12.2024.
A.2. As there was no impediment for giving vigilance clearance to the applicant for the DPC dated 24.12.2024, hence his case could not have been kept in sealed cover on 24.12.2024. A.3. As on 01.01.2025, when pursuant to the DPC dated 24.12.2024 other 21 similarly placed persons were promoted, there was no charge sheet served on the applicant for a disciplinary inquiry, nor he was under suspension and the applicant was not charge sheeted for any criminal case in the Court, hence, if otherwise found eligible by the DPC the applicant should have been promoted along with others on the same day. Hence, we pass following orders:
24. Hence, considering the facts of the case of the applicant, we find that the applicant has a strong case in his favour to be considered for promotion with effect from 1.1.2025 if he is otherwise found eligible by the DPC. We are of the considered opinion that his case could not have been kept in a sealed cover in the DPC dated 24.12.2024.
25. Accordingly, we pass following orders:
SHAINEY VIJU SHAINEBangalore CAT Y VIJU 2025.09.26 11:05:07+05'30' 13 O.A.No.170/00283/2025/CAT/BANGALORE Ignoring the non-availability of vigilance clearance on 24.12.2024, open the decision of DPC from the sealed cover and issue appropriate orders with effect from 1.1.2025 promoting the applicant, if he is otherwise eligible for promotion on that date. The respondents are directed to implement this order in an expeditious manner and in no event later than 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
The Original Application is allowed as above. Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending are also disposed of. No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(DR. SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/SV/
SHAINEY VIJU
SHAINEBangalore
CAT
Y VIJU 2025.09.26
11:05:07+05'30'