Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Raj Singh vs Dr Manoj Govil Vigilance on 12 November, 2025
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench,
New Delhi
C.P. No.432 of 2024
In
O.A. No.2357 of 2023
Orders reserved on : 04.11.2025
Orders pronounced on : 12.11.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjit More, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Dr. Raj Singh, Regional Director, Group 'A',
Aged About 57 Years,
S/o Sh. Suraj Bhan,
R/o A-42, Nivedita Kunj,
Sector-10, R.K. Puram,
New Delhi
...Petitioner
(By Advocate: Shri M.K. Bhardwaj
VERSUS
Dr. Manoj Govil,
Secretary,
Govt. of India,
Ministry of Corporate Affairs,
5th Floor, A-Wing, Shastri Bhawan,
Dr. Rajender Prasad Marg,
New Delhi - 110001.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Yogesh Sharma)
2025.11.13
RAVI KANOJIA
14:35:46+05'30'
Item No.5/C-1 2 C.P. No.432/2024 in OA No.2357/2023
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):
By way of the present Contempt Petition, the petitioner has alleged non-compliance of the Order/Judgment dated 20.03.2024 passed by this Tribunal in OA No.2357/2023 (Annexure P-1). The operative portion of the said judgment reads as under:
"6.7 In the conspectus of the facts and circumstances brought out above, we are of the considered opinion that the respondent has erred in issuing the impugned Charge Memo to the applicant for the act exercised by him as a quasi-judicial officer, without subjecting him to judicial supervision in appeal. We are also of the view that the applicant has exercised due diligence. Coupled with these facts, when there is no financial implication, we allow the present OA with the following directions:-
i) Charge Memo No.C-14011/2/2023-Vigilance-MCA dated 13.06.2023 (Annexure A-1) is quashed and set aside;
ii) The respondent is directed to grant the applicant all consequential benefits flowing from setting aside of the Charge Memo; and
iii) The exercise, as ordained above, shall be completed by the respondents within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings vide the charge memo dated 13.06.2023, with the intention to deprive him of his rightful promotion to the post of Director General (DG), Corporate Affairs. The petitioner, being the senior-most SAG officer with HAG non-functional grade, became entitled to such promotion upon the retirement of the incumbent on 31.08.2023. However, due to issuance of the charge memo dated 13.06.2023, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. The Tribunal had stayed the said charge memo on 28.08.2023 (Annexure P-2) and, therefore, the petitioner stood clear from the vigilance angle. Despite this, instead of considering him for promotion, 2025.11.13 RAVI KANOJIA 14:35:46+05'30' Item No.5/C-1 3 C.P. No.432/2024 in OA No.2357/2023 the respondents assigned the charge of DG (Corporate Affairs) to the petitioner's junior on ad hoc basis vide order dated 30.11.2023. 2.1 Learned counsel further submitted that as vide note dated 02.02.2024, the petitioner's junior was empanelled for promotion to the post of DG (Corporate Affairs)/HAG and the petitioner's case was kept in sealed cover on the basis of the said charge memo dated 13.06.2023. Thereafter, vide order dated 14.02.2024 (Annexure P-3), the respondents promoted the petitioner's junior on an ad hoc basis to the said post.
2.2 Learned counsel pointed out that the petitioner's OA No.2357/2023 was ultimately allowed by this Tribunal on 20.03.2024, with the directions as quoted above.
2.3 Learned counsel argued that in spite of the said Order/Judgment vide which the said charge memo dated 13.06.2023 had been quashed by this Tribunal, the respondents did not promote the petitioner to the post of DG (Corporate Affairs) and continued his junior as DG on an ad hoc basis. Though the petitioner made a representation requesting his consideration for promotion to the post of DG (Corporate Affairs) as per the directions of the Tribunal, the respondents chose to file filed Writ Petition, being W.P.(C) No.5898/2024 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The Hon'ble High Court, vide judgment dated 15.05.2024, dismissed the said writ petition and upheld the Tribunal's decision. Relevant observations are contained in paragraphs 46 to 51 of the said order/judgment of the Hon'ble High Court read as under:-
"46. Having said so, we may observe that though there is no gain saying that the Courts should be very slow to interdict departmental proceedings at the stage of charge sheet, however, in a case like the present one, considering the factual matrix noted hereinabove and the reasons which appear to be the basis for initiating departmental 2025.11.13 RAVI KANOJIA 14:35:46+05'30' Item No.5/C-1 4 C.P. No.432/2024 in OA No.2357/2023 proceedings against the respondent for a particular reason, permitting the enquiry to continue against him, would, in our view, be grave injustice to him and ought not to be permitted.
47. Before we conclude, we may also deal with the petitioner's plea that the learned Tribunal has erred in presuming that just because the RoC and the Dealing Assistant as also Processing Officer did not bring to the notice of the respondent any pending inspection against these companies of the Carnoustie Group and since the system MCA 21 did not generate an alert in this regard, he was unaware of this fact and consequently, it could not be held of the respondent being guilty of violating Rule 30(9) of the Rules. Though, taking into account that the respondent had, himself, vide order dated 12.04.2019 directed the Joint Director (NR) Mr. Moorthy to carry out inspections as per directions issued by the petitioner on 26.03.2019 and further allowed the shifting of the registered office of the 5 companies of the Carnoustie Group around the same time, appears to be attractive on the first blush, however, upon a closer scrutiny of the dates on which these applications for shifting registered offices of the companies were received in the office of the respondent coupled with the dates on which the inspections actually commenced, which were after July, by which date application for transfer of the registered office of the 4 companies had been allowed and inspection qua the 1 leftover company had already been concluded, we are unable to accept the petitioner's plea that the respondent had deliberately overlooked the pendency of the inspections qua these companies.
48. Furthermore, taking the case of the petitioner to the hilt, there certainly seems to be more than one officer barring the respondent involved in processing of the application, however, strangely and for no plausible reason absolutely no explanation has been provided by the petitioner as to why no action has been initiated against the two RoCs as also the other officers involved in forwarding the files to the respondent for approval, who failed to inform him about the order for inspections against the 5 companies of the Carnoustie Group. Strangely, the petitioner is also silent as to why no alert message was generated in the MCA 21 system.
49. Simultaneously, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the respondent, as a Regional Director, was dealing with about 500 cases every month and therefore, had to rely on the information supplied by the RoCs as also the officers dealing with the files. In the present case, these officers had while putting up these applications before the respondent admittedly annexed a check-list where there was no mention of any pending inspection against any of the company. It is also not the case of the petitioner that there are any other allegations and/ or complaints of the similar nature or of any other kind filed/ pending against the respondent.
50. We, therefore, find no reason to differ with the finding of the Tribunal that the respondent was not apprised of the pending inspections when he allowed the shifting applications.
51. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no infirmity with the impugned order. The writ petition being meritless is, along with the pending application, dismissed."
2025.11.13 RAVI KANOJIA 14:35:46+05'30' Item No.5/C-1 5 C.P. No.432/2024 in OA No.2357/2023 2.4 Learned counsel also argued that even after dismissal of the said writ petition, the respondents continued to keep the petitioner's case in sealed cover on the basis of the very same charge memo dated 13.06.2023, which had already been quashed by this Tribunal and upheld by the Hon'ble High Court. Learned counsel submitted that once the charge memo had been set aside, the respondents have no authority in law to rely upon it or to continue the petitioner's case under sealed cover. By doing so, the respondents have acted in wilful disobedience of the aforesaid order/judgment of this Tribunal, resulting in the petitioner's junior continuing to hold the post of DG on ad hoc basis. Hence, the respondents are liable to be proceeded against and punished under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and, hence, the present Contempt Petition was filed before this Tribunal. 2.5 Learned counsel further submitted that the present Contempt Petition had earlier been closed by this Tribunal vide Order/Judgment dated 03.03.2025, since it was brought to the notice of this Tribunal that the aforesaid Orders/Judgments of this Tribunal as well as that of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court were under challenge before the Hon'ble Apex Court, where notice had already been issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said proceedings.
2.6 Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court had dismissed the said SLP (Civil) No.17422/2024, titled Union of India vs. Raj Singh, vide judgment dated 25.05.2025, the said judgment reads as follows:-
"Learned Attorney General for India, on instructions, submit that the relevant department has decided not to press this special leave petition 2025.11.13 RAVI KANOJIA 14:35:46+05'30' Item No.5/C-1 6 C.P. No.432/2024 in OA No.2357/2023 for proceeding with the disciplinary proceedings which were initiated against the respondent, since quashed by the impugned order.
2. In such view of the matter, we dispose of the special leave petition granting liberty to the respondent to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law, if he considers himself aggrieved by the order of compulsory retirement in exercise of power conferred by Rule 56 (j) of the Fundamental Rules, before the appropriate forum.
3. Needless to observe, the appropriate department shall release all terminal benefits in favour of the respondent, to which he is entitled, in accordance with law within two months from date.
4. All contentions are left open."
2.6 Learned counsel also submitted that thereafter the petitioner filed Misc. Application No.1936/2025 seeking revival of the present Contempt Petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
4. We find that on 16.07.2025, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner had been found fit for promotion to the HAG in Level-15, and that a recommendation to this effect had already been forwarded to the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) and the approval of the ACC was expected within a fortnight or so. Further, we note that on 10.09.2025, this Tribunal allowed the said MA for revival of the present CP and on the said date, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that certain queries were raised by the ACC vide letter dated 19.08.2025. The said queries were duly replied to by the respondents vide communication dated 26.08.2025. It was therefore prayed that some additional time may be granted to enable the ACC to take an appropriate decision in the matter. Accordingly, a Miscellaneous Application (MA No. 3342/2025) was also filed seeking extension of time by three months for compliance with the 2025.11.13 RAVI KANOJIA 14:35:46+05'30' Item No.5/C-1 7 C.P. No.432/2024 in OA No.2357/2023 order/judgment of this Tribunal. The matter was then adjourned to 13.10.2025, with a direction that the respondent/competent authority shall remain personally present before this Tribunal on the said date, if the said order of this Tribunal is not complied with. On 13.10.2025, the respondent's counsel produced a copy of Office Order dated 06.10.2025 and submitted that the aforesaid order of this Tribunal has been complied with. The relevant paras of the said Order dated 13.10.2025 passed in the present CP by this Tribunal are reproduced as under:-
"OFFICE ORDER The President is pleased to promote Shri Raj Singh, Ex-RD to Higher Administrative Grade of Indian Corporate Law Service in the Level 15 of Pay Matrix (Rs.1,82,200-2,24,100/-), on notional basis, w.e.f. 14.02.2024 (A/N) i.e. date of promotion of his junior to 23.08.2024 i.e. date of his retirement under 56 (j), with consequential benefits, if any, until further orders, subject to the outcomes of WP (C) No. 1718/2017 filed by Uol and WP (C) No. 11460/2016 filed by Sh. D. Bandopadhyay in the Hon'ble High Court, Delhi.
(Shailendra M Pathak) Under Secretary"
4. Mr. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the applicant, invites our attention to the Schedule-II of the Indian Corporate Law Service Rules (ICLS), 2015 and submitted that Higher Administrative Grade (HAG) is a grade in scale and respondents have not given the said designation to the applicant while issuing the order dated 06.10.2025. We find that the only post available in the Higher Administrative Grade is the Director General of Corporate Affairs.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that applicant is working as Regional Director in Level 15 pay Matrix which is equivalent to the HAG and, therefore, the respondents ought to have given promotion by designation which is given in all other cases.
6. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that order of this Tribunal referred above is already complied with and if the applicant is aggrieved by the order dated 06.10.2025, he can challenge the orders by filing separate OA. We, however, find substance in the arguments of Mr. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the applicant, that if the applicant is to be given Higher Administrative Grade notionally, even designation should have been given notionally.
7. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents, in the above circumstances, seeks a small accommodation to take instructions from the respondents. Request is granted."
2025.11.13 RAVI KANOJIA 14:35:46+05'30' Item No.5/C-1 8 C.P. No.432/2024 in OA No.2357/2023
5. This matter was further heard on 4.11.2025 on which date the learned counsel appearing for the respondents had provided a copy of the minutes of the meeting dated 14.6.2023 in which the DPC made the recommendation, which reads as under:-
"Having examined the APARs of Dr. RAJ SINGH against whom a vigilance case is pending, the Departmental Promotion Committee assessed him as "Fit" for the year 2023. On the basis of this assessment, the Committee recommends that his name may be included in the extended panel for the year 2023 at S. No.0-A above the name of Shri SANJAY SHOREY AT S. No.1 of the extended panel subject to his securing a clearance in the vigilance case pending against him.
6. In the present case, the delay in issuance of the petitioner's promotion order is attributable to a sequence of mandatory administrative and legal process that required completion before the promotion could be finalized. The Departmental Promotion Committee, in its meeting dated 14.06.2023, had recommended the petitioner as "Fit" for inclusion in the extended panel subject to vigilance clearance, since a vigilance matter was then pending against him. The requirement of vigilance clearance is a statutory and procedural safeguard that could not be dispensed with. Thereafter, upon the matter being placed before the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC), the ACC sought certain clarifications vide letter dated 19.08.2025, which were duly furnished by the respondents on 26.08.2025. As the approval of the ACC was indispensable for effecting promotion to the Higher Administrative Grade, additional time was sought and granted by this Tribunal in MA No.3342/2025 to enable the ACC to conclude its examination. Further, ongoing litigation relating to seniority and cadre allocation in W.P.(C) Nos.1718/2017 and 11460/2016 necessitated cautious record finalization. Thus, the delay is explainable as flowing from prescribed 2025.11.13 RAVI KANOJIA 14:35:46+05'30' Item No.5/C-1 9 C.P. No.432/2024 in OA No.2357/2023 procedural requirements and inter-departmental approvals, and cannot be regarded as deliberate or contumacious.
7. From the Office Order dated 06.10.2025, it is evident that the petitioner was promoted to Higher Administrative Grade of Indian Corporate Law Service in the level 15 of Pay Matrix (Rs.1,82,200- 2,24,100/-) on notional basis w.e.f. 14.02.2024 (A/N), i.e., date of promotion of his junior to 23.08.2024, i.e., date of his retirement under 56 (j), with consequential benefits, if any, until further orders, subject to outcomes of WP (C) No.1718/2017 filed by UoI and WP (C) No.11460/2016 filed by Shri D. Bandopadhyay in the Hon'ble High Court, Delhi.
8. In view of the admitted position that the junior of the petitioner, namely, Shri Sanjay Shorey, was promoted to the post of Director General on ad hoc basis vide order dated 14.02.2024, and the respondents have already granted notional promotion to the petitioner w.e.f. the same date, we are of the considered view that the petitioner is also entitled to the corresponding notional designation attached to the Higher Administrative Grade. Once the benefits of the Higher Administrative Grade had been extended to the petitioner notionally from the date of promotion of his junior, denial of the corresponding designation would render the said promotion incomplete in substance. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to issue a fresh order granting the petitioner notional designation of Ex-Director General (Corporate Affairs) for the period from 14.02.2024 to 23.08.2024, i.e., the date of his retirement, along with all consequential benefits, if any, as admissible in law. This shall, however, remain subject to the outcome of 2025.11.13 RAVI KANOJIA 14:35:46+05'30' Item No.5/C-1 10 C.P. No.432/2024 in OA No.2357/2023 W.P.(C) No. 1718/2017 and W.P.(C) No. 11460/2016 pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. The present Contempt Petition is closed. Notice issued to the respondent is discharged.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (Justice Ranjit More)
Member (A) Chairman
/ravi/
2025.11.13
RAVI KANOJIA
14:35:46+05'30'