Central Administrative Tribunal - Gauhati
K S P V Pavan Kumar vs Environment And Forest on 14 May, 2026
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
GUWAHATI BENCH
Original Application Nos. 040/00263/2024 & 040/00279/2024
HON'BLE MR RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR SANJIV KUMAR, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Sri K.S.P.V. Pavan Kumar, IFS, Aged about 55 years
Son of Shri K.V.N. Nagendra Sayee
Resident of C-205, Universal Ecogreen Apartment
Ahomgaon, Betkuchi, Guwahati
Dist. Kamrup (M), Assam, Pin-781040.
...Applicant in both OAs
-AND-
1. The Union of India, Represented by Secretary, to the
Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest,
Paryabaran Bhawan, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New
Delhi-110003.
2. The State of Assam, represented by the Chief Secretary to the
Government of Assam, Janata Bhawan, Dispur, Guwahati-
781006.
3. The Special Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam,
Environment and Forest Department, Dispur, Guwahati-
781006.
4. The Secretary to the Government of Assam, Environment and
Forests Department, Dispur, Guwahati- 781006, Assam.
5. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Head of Forest
Force, Assam, Panjabari, Guwahati- 781037, Assam.
6. Dr. Vinay Gupta, IFS, Principal Chief Conservator of Forest
(Wildlife) & Chief Wildlife Warden, Assam, Panjabari,
Guwahati-781037.
Respondents in OA 263/2024
O.A. Nos./263/2024 &
PRASANNA Digitally signed by
PRASANNA
BASUMATARYBASUMATARY
279/2024
2
1. The Union of India, Represented by Secretary, to the
Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest,
Paryabaran Bhawan, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New
Delhi-110003.
2. The State of Assam, represented by the Chief Secretary to the
Government of Assam, Janata Bhawan, Dispur, Guwahati-
781006.
3. The Special Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam,
Environment and Forest Department, Dispur, Guwahati-
781006.
4. The Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam,
Environment and Forests Department, Dispur, Guwahati-
781006.
5. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Head of Forest
Force, Assam, Panjabari, Guwahati- 781037, Assam.
Respondents in OA 279/2024
Present:
For applicant(s): Mr. A. Chakraborty and Mr. A. Chetia
For respondents: Mr. V.K. Bhatra, Sr. CGSC for Res. No. 1,
Mr. A.K. Choudhury, for Res. No. 2 and
Mr. D. Gogoi for Res. Nos. 3, 4 & 5
Date of Hearing: 07.05.2026 Date of Order: 14.05.2026
ORDER
PER: RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J):
As the relief sought for by the applicant in both the O.As are similar, so, with the consent of both parties, these two O.A. Nos. 263/2024 & 279 of 2024 are heard and decided together.
O.A. Nos./263/2024 & PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 279/2024 3
2. In O.A. No. 263/2024, applicant is seeking the following reliefs:
"8.1 To direct the respondents to promote the applicant to the rank of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests at HAG+ scale in Level 16 of Indian Forest Service (Pay) Rules, 2016 w.e.f. 26.11.2024 with all consequential benefits of pay, seniority etc. 8.1(A) To set aside and quash the impugned Notification bearing eCF No. 361914/13 dated 26.11.2024 (Annexure-P/1).
8.2. Cost of the application.
8.3. Any other relief/ relief's to which the applicant is entitled to under the facts and circumstances of the case and as may be deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble Tribunal upon consideration of the matter.
3. In O.A. No. 279/2024, applicant is seeking the following reliefs:
8.1 To set aside and quash the impugned Order bearing Memo No. 439264/266-B dated 27.11.2024 (Annexure-P/1).
8.2. To set aside and quash the impugned Minutes of the State Screening Committee meeting held on 19.12.2023 (Annexure- P/2) so far as it relates to denial of proforma promotion to the applicant to the rank of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests at HAG+ scale in Level-16 of the pay matrix of Indian Forest Service (Pay) Rules, 2016.
8.3. To direct the respondents to grant proforma promotion in favour of the applicant to the rank of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests at HAG+ scale in Level-16 of the pay matrix of Indian Forest Service (Pay) Rules, 2016 w.e.f. the date of promotion of Sri Rajpal Singh, i.e., 01.01.2024 with all consequential benefits of pay, seniority etc. O.A. Nos./263/2024 & PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 279/2024 4 8.4. Cost of the application.
8.5 Any other relief/relief's to which the applicant is entitled to under the facts and circumstances of the case and as may be deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble Tribunal upon consideration of the matter."
4. As per the applicant, though, as per the recommendation of the Joint Cadre Authority in its meeting dated 29.08.2023, wherein with regard to the promotion to the rank of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests(PCCF) in HAG + Scale in Level-16 of the pay matrix as well as with regard to the Assam segment, it was recommended that two nos. of officers can be considered at the HAG + Level-16 for promotion in ex-cadre category, wherein the name of the present applicant being 1992 batch IFS officer along with other two persons i.e., Sri R.P. Singh, IFS(RR: 1991) and Dr. Vinay Gupta, IFS(RR: 1993) were considered with regard to the one cadre post and two ex-cadre posts. However, vide Notification dated 31.12.2023(Annexure-P/9) issued by the Environment and Forest Department, Government of Assam, only Shri R.P. Singh, IFS(RR: 1991) was promoted to the rank of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests in HAG + Scale of Pay in Level-16, whereas the name of the applicant has not been O.A. Nos./263/2024 & PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 279/2024 5 considered by the State Screening Committee, though, two ex-cadre posts were still lying vacant and his name was recommended by the Joint Cadre Authority(JCA). Being aggrieved with, the applicant has also asked for certain documents vide Letter dated 08.02.2024(Annexure-P/8) which are pending before the authority. Being aggrieved with non- consideration of his promotion to the HAG+ Matrix in Level-16, earlier, he approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 33 of 2024, which was disposed of vide order dated 15.02.2024 directing the respondents to pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of four months. Since the aforesaid order of this Tribunal was not complied with by the respondents, applicant preferred a Contempt Petition No. 29/2024 which was 'Admitted' vide order dated 20.06.2024.
5. Applicant stated that in the meantime, an F.I.R was lodged on 16.03.2024 before the Officer in-charge of ACB Police Station, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Assam, Srimantapur, Guwahati for investigation into the alleged anomalies in procurement contracts related to the procurement of vehicles under APFBC Phase-II. As per the O.A. Nos./263/2024 & PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 279/2024 6 applicant, said F.I.R. was lodged subsequent to a request being made by the applicant vide his letter dated 09.09.2023 to initiate criminal investigation in order to screen out the culprits. Upon receipt of the F.I.R. dated 16.03.2024, the Officer In-Charge of ACB Police Station registered a case being ACB P.S. Case No. 24/2024 under Sections 120(B)/ 406/409/419/420/468/ 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 r/w Section 7(a)/13(2)/13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The applicant along with several other persons including government servants have been named in the F.I.R. as an accused. However, investigation in the said mater is not complete and no Charge sheet has been filed till date. However, the respondent authorities issued a Memorandum dated 28.05.2024 issued against the applicant under Rule 8(5) of the All-India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969. Being aggrieved with issuance of Memorandum dated 28.05.2024; applicant approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 158 of 2024. This Tribunal vide Order dated 26.06.2025 quashed and set aside the said Memorandum of Charge sheet dated 28.05.2024.
O.A. Nos./263/2024 & PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 279/2024 7
6. Thereafter, applicant preferred another two O.As No. 232/2024 and 233/2024 before this Tribunal and this Tribunal vide order dated 08.10.2024 issued notice and directed the respondents not to take any coercive action taking into account the impugned PAR of the applicant till the next date. Said interim relief continues to be in force. However, the respondent authorities issued impugned Notification dated 26.11.2024 thereby promoting the Dr. Vinay Gupta, IFS, to the rank of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests in Level-16 of Pay Matix of IFS Pay Rules. As per the applicant, till the date of filing O.A. No. 263/2024, Dr. Vinay Gupta had not taken over the charge as the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wild Life) & Chief Wild Life Warden, Assam. Said Notification dated 26.11.2024 is challenged in present O.A. No. 263/2024. Thereafter, in purported compliance of the Order dated 15.02.2024 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 33/2024, issued the impugned Order dated 27.11.2024 thereby rejecting the claim of the applicant for grant of proforma promotion to the rank of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests in HAG+ scale in Level-16 of the IFS Pay Rules, 2016 and the same is challenged O.A. Nos./263/2024 & PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 279/2024 8 in present O.A. No. 279/2024. Taking into consideration the said Order dated 27.11.2024, pending C.P. No. 29/2024, was dropped by this Tribunal vide order dated 03.12.2024.
7. Respondents filed written statement and stated that O.A. No. 263/2024 has been filed by the applicant challenging the Notification No. eCF No. 361914/13 dated 26.11.2024 by which the respondent No. 6 has been promoted to the rank of Principal Chef Conservator of Forests in Level-16 of Pay Matrix of the IFS Pay Rules, 2016 over the applicant. The said Notification has been challenged by the applicant as being arbitrary and illegal. As per the respondents, in pursuance to Notification No. eCF No. 361914/13 dated 26.11.2024 issued by the Government of Assam, Environment & Forest Department [Annexure-P/1 of the O.A.], the Respondent no. 6 took over charge as Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Wildlife & Chief Wildlife Warden, Assam on 27.11.2024. The present O.A. was moved by the applicant only on 28.11.2024, thereby rendering the same as infructuous so far as promoting the applicant to the rank of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests w.e.f. 26.11.2024 or O.A. Nos./263/2024 & PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 279/2024 9 staying the Notification No. eCF No. 361914/13 dated 26.11.2024 is concerned.
8. Respondents stated that the Joint Cadre Authority Meeting held on 29.08.2023 recorded that 2 (Two) officers in order of office seniority can be considered at the HAG+ Level 16 for promotion in the Ex-Cadre category, namely one Shri RP Singh, IFS (RR:1991) and the applicant. Since the applicant was on deputation, the respondents recorded that proforma promotion can be considered for the same. Said observations in no way amount to a recommendation of the name of the applicant for promotion to HAG+ Level 16 on the part of the respondents. The applicant's case for promotion was duly considered and rejected by the respondents by passing a detailed speaking order dated 27.11.2024. This was in pursuance to order dated 15.02.2024 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A. 33/2024 and in compliance of Contempt Petition No. 29/2024. Upon producing the said speaking order dated 27.11.2024, this Tribunal vide order dated 03.12.2024 closed the said CP No. 29/2024.
O.A. Nos./263/2024 & PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 279/2024 10
9. Respondents further stated that a Disciplinary Proceeding vide Memorandum No. 492661/1884 dated 28.05.2024 is pending against the applicant and a criminal U/S case vide ACB PS Case No. 24/2024, 120B/406/409/419/429/468/471 IPC read with Section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) against the applicant is ongoing at the Directorate of Vigilance & Anti-Corruption, Assam. Considering the said factors and consequential non-grant of Vigilance Clearance to the applicant, the State Screening Committee did not consider the case of the applicant for promotion in the Rank of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests in Level-16 of the Pay Matrix.
10. We have heard Shri A. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri V.K. Bhatra, learned Sr. CGSC for respondent No. 1, Shri A.K. Choudhury, learned Jr. Govt. Advocate, Assam for respondent No. 2 and Shri D. Gogoi, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 5 and perused the documents.
O.A. Nos./263/2024 & PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 279/2024 11
11. By filing rejoinder, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there can be no manner of doubt that on the date of issuance of the impugned promotional order dated 26.11.2024, the Speaking Order dated 27.11.2024 was non- existent. The respondent authorities, without complying with the directions passed by this Tribunal on 15.02.2024 in O.A. No. 33/2024 promoted the junior officer, Dr. Vinay Gupta, respondent No. 6. However, the State Screening Committee in its meeting held on 19.12.2023 had rejected the case of the applicant due to non-grant of vigilance clearance wherein the O.M. dated 02.11.2012 stipulates the conditions under which vigilance clearance can be denied for promotion. A perusal of the same O.M. reflects that mere filing of an FIR and pendency of investigation cannot be a ground for denial of vigilance clearance. As per the learned counsel, fresh charge sheet, if any, issued against the applicant at a future point of time, cannot be made retrospectively applicable to deny promotion to which applicant was eligible on 19.12.2023.
O.A. Nos./263/2024 & PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 279/2024 12
12. Learned counsels for the respondents submitted that due to registration of a Criminal Case against the applicant vide ACB PS Case No. 24/2024, U/S 120B/406/409/419/429/468/471 IPC read with Section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) which was registered at the Directorate of Vigilance & Anti-Corruption, Assam at the instance of the Government vide letter No. PLA(V)257/2023/132 dated 07.03.2024, vigilance clearance of the applicant has been denied. Due to this reason, the State Screening Committee could not recommend the promotion of the applicant due to not being clear from the vigilance angle. His case will be taken up once again when the vigilance clearance is received upon conclusion of the investigation by the Directorate of Vigilance & Anti-Corruption, Assam.
13. Both parties have submitted various citations in support of their contentions.
14. The question requiring consideration is as to whether a mere grant of prosecution sanction would be sufficient to infer that the prosecution for a criminal charge O.A. Nos./263/2024 & PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 279/2024 13 was pending against the applicant. Similar issue came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. Doly Loyi, Civil Appeal No (S). 8387 of 2013 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court taking into account the case of Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, reported in 1991 AIR 2010, held that sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after the charge memo/charge sheet is issued. The relevant extract was also reproduced as follows:
"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 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. The acceptance of this contention would result in injustice to the employees in many cases. As has been the experience so far, the preliminary investigations take an inordinately long time and particularly when they are initiated at the instance of the interested persons, they are kept pending deliberately. Many times they never result in the issue of any charge-memo/charge-sheet. If the allegations are serious and the authorities are keen in investigating them, ordinarily it should not take much time to O.A. Nos./263/2024 & PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 279/2024 14 collect the relevant evidence and finalise the charges. What is further, if the charges are that serious, the authorities have the power to suspend the employee under the relevant rules, and the suspension by itself permits a resort to the sealed cover procedure. The authorities thus are not without a remedy."
15. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that the Ministry of Personnel, Government of India vide OM dated 2nd November, 2012 issued certain clarifications regarding the stage when prosecution for criminal charge can be said to be pending, keeping in view the dicta laid down in K.V. Jankiraman (supra). Para Nos. 6 and 8 of OM dated 2nd November, 2012 states as under:
"6. When a government servant comes under a cloud, he may pass through three stages, namely, investigation for a criminal charge in departmental proceedings and or prosecution of criminal by penal/conviction exoneration/acquittal. During the stage of investigation prior to issue of charge-sheet in disciplinary proceedings or prosecution, if the Government is of the view that the charges are serious and the officer should not be promoted, it is open to the Government to suspend the officer which will lead to DPC recommendation to be kept in sealed cover. The sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after the charge memo/charge-sheet is issued or the officer is placed under suspension. The pendency of preliminary investigation prior to that stage is not adopt the sealed cover procedure."
16. Considering the above position, the disciplinary/criminal proceedings can be said to be initiated against the employee only when a charge memo is issued to O.A. Nos./263/2024 & PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 279/2024 15 the employee in a disciplinary proceeding or a charge-sheet for a criminal prosecution is filed in the competent Court. The sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after issuance of the charge-memo/charge-sheet is issued. The pendency of investigation and grant of prosecution sanction will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure.
17. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the crucial aspect requiring examination is as to whether the prosecution for criminal charge was pending against the applicant when the DPC meeting was held.
18. In is noted that instant applicant came under zone of consideration to the post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests on 31.12.2021. The Joint Cadre Authority in respect of Assam-Meghalya Cadre in its meeting held on 29.08.2023 had recommended the name of the applicant for proforma promotion to HAG+Level-16 of the pay matrix of IFS Pay Rules, 2016. However, State Screening Committee vide its Minutes of Meeting dated 19.12.2023 had rejected the case of the applicant. However, copy of the said Meeting dated O.A. Nos./263/2024 & PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 279/2024 16 19.12.2023 was not furnished to the applicant. On 16.03.2024, an F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant along with several other persons for investigation of into the alleged anomalies in procurement contracts related to the procurement of vehicles under APFBC Phase-II. Memorandum was issued against the applicant on 28.05.2024 and the same was set aside by this Tribunal vide Order dated 26.06.2025 in OA No. 158 of 2024. More so, no charge sheet was issued to the applicant.
19. From the perusal of record it is noted that the applicant is an officer of 1992 Batch of Indian Forest Service, Assam-Meghalya Joint Cadre whereas private respondent No. 6 namely Dr. Vinay Gupta, IFS is an officer of 1993 Batch of the said cadre. However, the respondent authority vide Notification dated 26.11.2024 promoted the private respondent No. 6 namely Dr. Vinay Gupta, IFS to the rank of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests in Level-16 of Pay Matrix of IFS Pay Rules, 2016 and denied the promotion to the applicant vide Order dated 27.11.2024, which in our considered view, is not sustainable. Accordingly, Notification O.A. Nos./263/2024 & PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 279/2024 17 dated 26.11.2024 as well as Order dated 27.11.2024 are quashed and set aside.
20. Respondents are directed to grant proforma promotion to the applicant to the rank of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests in Level-16 of Pay Matrix of IFS Pay Rules, 2016 by creating a supernumerary post with effect from the date of promotion of Sri Rajpal Singh i.e. w.e.f. 01.01.2024 with all consequential benefits of pay, seniority etc, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.
21. With the above common orders, both O.As stand allowed. Pending, M.A. if any, also stands disposed of.
22. No order as to costs.
(SANJIV KUMAR) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
PB
O.A. Nos./263/2024 &
PRASANNA Digitally signed by
PRASANNA
BASUMATARYBASUMATARY
279/2024