Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
R P Meena vs Home Affairs on 15 May, 2025
1
O.A. No. 4163/2024
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 4163/2024
Reserved on: 01.05.2025
Pronounced on: 15.05.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjit More, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
R. P. Meena, DANICS- 1995,
Group 'A' presently posted as
Special Development Commissioner (HQ),
Govt. of NCT of Delhi S/o Manohari Lal Meena,
R/o 666, Kamaljeet sandhu block,
Asian Games village, New Delhi-110049
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. M K Bhardwaj)
Versus
1. Union of India,
through its Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block,
New Delhi-110001
2. The Joint Secretary (UT),
Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block,
New Delhi-110001
3. Union Public Service Commission
through Secretary
Dholpur House,
Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi- 1 10069
4. The Secretary,
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Public Grievances & Pensions
North Block, New Delhi- 110001
2
O.A. No. 4163/2024
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Gyayendra Singh for R1, 2 and 4. Mr. R V
Sinha for R3)
O R D E R (ORAL)
Per: Justice Ranjit More, Chairman By filing this Original Application (OA), the applicant has sought the following reliefs:
"(i) To declare the action of respondents in not appointing the applicant to IAS of Joint AGMUT Cadre (UT Segment) for the select list 2020, as illegal, arbitrary and unjustified and issue appropriate consequential directions to the respondents to appoint the applicant to IAS of Joint AGMUT Cadre (UT Segment) for the select list 2020 with all consequential benefits.
(ii) To declare the action of respondent nos. 1 to 3 in not making available latest Integrity Certificate as per the Integrity Certificate dated 01.03.2024 (A-7) as illegal and direct the respondents to appoint the applicant to IAS by treating the Integrity Certificate dated 01.03.2024 as latest Integrity Certificate as required under the rules.
(iii) To quash and set aside the notification dated 27.02.2024 (A- 1) to the extent the same contain a note to treat the inclusion of applicant in select list as approved by President of India for appointment of applicant to IAS as provisional and direct the respondents to appoint the applicant to IAS from due date with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay."
2. The brief facts giving rise to this application are as follows:
2.1 The applicant belongs to the 1995 batch of the Delhi, Andaman and Nicobar Islands Civil Services (DANICS) and was 3 O.A. No. 4163/2024 promoted to the Junior Administrative Grade (JAG)-II in the year 2004 and to JAG-I in the year 2016.
2.2 Thereafter, the first respondent initiated the process for induction of DANICS officers into the IAS cadre for the Select List of 2020 in October 2021. The meeting of the Selection Committee was held on 14.02.2024 to assess the suitability of eligible officers, including the applicant. Subsequently, on 27.02.2024, the respondents issued the notification for the Select List of State Civil Services officers of the UT Segment for induction into the IAS, wherein the name of the applicant was included. However, the respondents treated the applicant's inclusion as provisional, subject to the issuance of an Integrity Certificate.
2.3 Aggrieved by this action of treating his induction as provisional, the applicant submitted a representation dated 29.02.2024 to the respondents, stating that the requisite Integrity Certificate had already been forwarded by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD).
2.4 Upon receipt of the said representation, the GNCTD issued a letter dated 11.12.2024 to respondent no. 1, reaffirming that the Integrity Certificate dated 18.11.2022, as required by the Ministry, 4 O.A. No. 4163/2024 had been forwarded vide their letter dated 21.11.2022. It was further confirmed that a new Integrity Certificate had also been forwarded vide letter dated 04.03.2024.
2.5 The applicant thereafter submitted another representation dated 15.03.2024, detailing the Integrity Certificates that had been submitted to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) for forwarding to respondent nos. 3 and 4. The Head of Department also sent another Integrity Certificate dated 01.03.2024, along with the earlier one dated 02.03.2020, to the Special Secretary (Services) for submission to the MHA.
2.6 The applicant has also pointed out that he is neither facing any disciplinary proceedings nor any criminal charge or even an FIR, and hence, his induction into the IAS could not have been treated as provisional.
2.7 Despite all the above representations and supporting documents, no action has been taken by the respondents. The applicant, therefore, finds himself constrained to approach this Tribunal seeking the reliefs mentioned above.5 O.A. No. 4163/2024
3. Mr. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the applicant, drew our attention to the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, particularly the first proviso and Explanations I and II appended below the second proviso to Regulation 5(5) thereof. He submitted that the Integrity Certificate in respect of the applicant, for the purpose of promotion to the IAS of the Joint AGMUT Cadre, could not have been withheld, especially in the absence of any pending departmental or criminal proceedings against him.
3.1 He further submitted that a fresh Integrity Certificate was issued on 01.03.2024 by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) and was duly forwarded to the concerned respondents. Therefore, the applicant's induction into the IAS could not have been treated as provisional. 3.2 Mr. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the issue involved in the present application is squarely covered by the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1982/2024. He also relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, 1991 (4) SCC 109.
6O.A. No. 4163/2024 3.3 Mr. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the applicant, further submitted that the Integrity Certificate of the applicant was withheld by the GNCTD vide communication dated 12.06.2023 on the ground of registration of an FIR. He, however, pointed out that the applicant is not named in the said FIR. Furthermore, the applicant has not been named in the charge sheet, and in any event, the charge sheet has been returned by the learned Special Judge due to various lacunae.
3.4 He submitted that, in terms of Regulation 5(5) of the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman(supra), the Integrity Certificate could not have been withheld by the GNCTD, nor could the applicant's induction have been treated as provisional.
3.5 He also drew our attention to the interim relief granted by this Tribunal vide order dated 30.01.2025, whereby the Select List of 2020, in respect of members of the State Civil Services of the UT Segment for promotion to the IAS of the Joint AGMUT Cadre against the vacancies of 2020, was made subject to the final outcome of the present OA.
7O.A. No. 4163/2024
4. Mr. Gyanendra Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1, 2, and 4, vehemently opposed the petition and filed a counter affidavit. He submitted that although the applicant was eligible for induction into the IAS for the Select List 2020, and the process for such induction had commenced in October 2021, the meeting of the Selection Committee for the purpose of assessing the suitability of eligible officers could be held only on 14.02.2024 due to administrative constraints. He further submitted that the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD), vide letter dated 12.06.2023, had withheld the Integrity Certificate in respect of the applicant. It was also submitted that, as per information provided by GNCTD, FIR No. 21/12 had been registered by the Anti-Corruption Branch, GNCTD, under Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, read with Sections 420, 409, 120-B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, against officers of the Transport Department. Mr. Gyanendra Singh also submitted that GNCTD, in the said letter dated 12.06.2023, had specifically invited attention to Explanation II under Regulation 5(5) of the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955. He finally submitted that, due to the non- 8 O.A. No. 4163/2024 availability of the Integrity Certificate, the applicant could not be inducted into the IAS of the Joint AGMUT Cadre.
5. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for respondent no. 3, has also opposed the application by filing a counter reply. He submitted that respondent no. 3 has scrupulously followed the procedure prescribed under the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955. However, the induction of the applicant was treated as provisional due to the withholding of the Integrity Certificate by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD).
6. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. We have also perused the pleadings of the parties and the ratio of the decision cited before us.
7. Before entering into the merits of the matter, we will make a brief reference to the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955. These Regulations are made by the Central Government in consultation with the State Governments and the Union Public Service Commission in exercise of power conferred under sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the IAS (Recruitment) Rules, 1954. 9 O.A. No. 4163/2024 Clause (e) of Regulation 2 defines "Commission" to mean the Union Public Service Commission. Clause (1) of the said Regulation defines the expression "Year" as follows:
"(1) "Year" means the period commencing on the first day of January and ending on the thirty first day of December of the same year."
Regulation 3 talks about "Constitution of the Committee to make Selection". Under this Regulation, the Selection Committee shall be presided over by the Chairman or any other Member representing the Commission, for making selection of the SCS officer for promotion to the IAS.
7.1 Under Regulation 5(1), the number of vacancies against which selection is to be made for a particular Select List for promotion of SCS officers to IAS of a State cadre, is determined by the Government of India in consultation with the State Government concerned. Thereafter, the State Government is to forward proposal to the Commission along with the seniority list, eligibility list (minimum three times of the number of vacancies) of the SCS officers, integrity certificates, details regarding disciplinary/criminal proceedings, certificate regarding communication of adverse remarks, details of penalties imposed 10 O.A. No. 4163/2024 on the eligible officers, etc., and complete ACR dossiers of the eligible officers. These documents received from the State Government are examined by the Commission for completeness, and after deficiencies, if any, resolved, placed before the Selection Committee for preparation of the Select List. Under Regulation 5(4) the Selection Committee duly classifies the eligible SCS officers included in the zone of consideration as 'Outstanding, 'Very Good', 'Good' or 'Unfit', as the case may be, and overall relative assessment of their service record. Thereafter, as per Regulation 5(5) the Selection Committee prepares a list 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 amongst those classified as 'Good', and the order of their respective inter se seniority in the SCS. Regulations 5(4) and 5(5) read as follows:
"5(4) The Selection Committee shall classify the eligible officers as 'Outstanding', 'Very Good', 'Good' or 'Unfit, as the case may be, on an overall relative assessment of their Service records.
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 amongst those similarly classified as 'Good' and the 11 O.A. No. 4163/2024 order of names inter-se within each category shall be in the order of their seniority in the State Civil Service. Provided that the name of any 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 that while preparing year-wise select lists for more than one year pursuant to the second proviso to sub-regulation (1), the officer included provisionally in any of the select list so prepared, shall be considered for inclusion in the select list of subsequent year in addition to the normal consideration zone and in case 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 I: 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. Explanation II: The adverse thing which came to the notice of the State Government rendering him unsuitable for appointment to the Service shall be treated as having come to the notice of the State only if the same have been communicated to the Central Government and the Central Government is satisfied that the details furnished by the State Government have a bearing on the suitability of the officer and investigation thereof is essential."
There is no dispute that the meeting of the Selection Committee was held on 14.02.2024 for the promotion of State Civil Services (SCS) officers to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) of the AGMUT Cadre. Prior to the said meeting, when the induction process was initiated, the Integrity Certificate dated 18.11.2022 in respect of the applicant was duly forwarded to respondent UPSC. 12 O.A. No. 4163/2024 However, subsequently, the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) withheld the applicant's Integrity Certificate vide communication dated 12.06.2023. The Integrity Certificate was withheld on the ground that FIR No. 21/12 had been registered by the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB), GNCTD, under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, read with Sections 420, 409, 120-B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, against certain officers of the Transport Department and M/s Environmental Systems Products (ESP) India Pvt. Ltd., in relation to alleged irregularities in the awarding and implementation of a contract to the said company by the Transport Department, GNCTD. Upon conclusion of the investigation, the ACB, GNCTD sought sanction for prosecution against the applicant and others.
8. Mr. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the applicant, has placed on record the order dated 11.03.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge-III (PC Act Cases of ACB, GNCTD), Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in CC No. 532249/2016 arising out of FIR No. 21/12. On perusal of the said order, it is evident that a chargesheet was filed in connection with FIR No. 21/12; however, 13 O.A. No. 4163/2024 the chargesheet was filed against the following individuals:
Joginder Sharma, Ashok Kumar Gupta, V.K. Gupta, M.A. Usmani, R.K. Verma, R. Chandermohan, and J.P. Sharma. The applicant was not named as an accused in the said chargesheet. Be that as it may, the learned Special Judge refused to take cognizance against the accused persons named in the chargesheet. It was observed that the requisite sanction for prosecution of retired government officials had not been placed on record. Accordingly, the chargesheet was returned in original with a direction to obtain sanction in respect of all government officials, whether serving or retired, and to conclude the investigation and file a final report after further ascertaining the role of the accused persons. In essence, the applicant was not chargesheeted in the criminal proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR.
8.1 The first proviso to Regulation 5(5) of the Regulations of 1955 talks about the circumstances in which the name of an officer in the Select List shall be treated as provisional. It makes it clear that the State Government can withhold integrity certificate in two circumstances, i.e., (i) where any proceedings, departmental or criminal, are pending against such an officer; or (ii) where anything 14 O.A. No. 4163/2024 adverse against the officer which renders him unsuitable for appointment to the Service, has come to the notice of the State Government. Explanation-I to the second proviso to Regulation 5(5) makes it clear that 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. Under Explanation-II to the second proviso, the adverse thing which came to the notice of the State Government rendering the officer unsuitable for appointment to the Service shall be treated as having come to the notice of the State only if the same has been communicated to the Central Government and the Central Government is satisfied that the details furnished by the State Government have a bearing on the suitability of the officer and investigation thereof is essential.
8.2 The applicant's case is covered by first proviso and Explanation-I below the second proviso to Regulation 5(5), inasmuch as it is not even the contention of the respondent No.1 or the respondent No.2 that any proceedings, departmental or criminal, were pending against the applicant, or anything adverse against the applicant which might render him unsuitable for appointment to the Service had come to the notice of the State 15 O.A. No. 4163/2024 Government; or, for that matter, any charge-sheet had actually been issued to the applicant or filed in a Court. The first proviso and Explanation-I to the second proviso make it abundantly clear that the integrity certificate of the officer included in the Select List can be withheld only in the contingencies mentioned therein.
Insofar as the present case is concerned, there is no dispute that the applicant was neither placed under suspension nor charge memorandum initiating disciplinary proceedings was issued to him or FIR was registered against him, leave aside filing of charge-sheet in a criminal court. In these circumstances, the respondent No.2, in our conscious consideration, was not justified in withholding the integrity certificate of the applicant just a day prior to the Selection Committee Meeting.
8.3 In the present Application we have been called upon to decide the correctness or otherwise of the stand of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4 relied heavily on the communication dated 27.10.1999, which is reproduced below for ready reference:
"Subject: Issuance of "Integrity Certificate to State Civil Service officers for promotion to I.A.S Sir, 16 O.A. No. 4163/2024 I am directed to refer to State Government letter No. 1/C-102099Ka-6276 dated the 26th July, 1999, on the above subject and to say as follows:
2. It is observed that clarification has been solicited by the State Government on the following issues namely:-
(a) Whether the Integrity Certificate to be furnished on the eve of consideration for promotion to the IAS in respect of the State Civil Service officers, any foreseeable actions under the PC Act. 1988 through the competent court is to be taken into account or not.
(b) Whether the integrity certificate is to be based upon the entries in the relevant columns in the ACRS or upon the general perception derived from the ACRS. In other words, adverse entries in the ACRS on account of misbehaviour, negligence of duties, violation of Government orders etc. will have a bearing on the issue of integrity or not, if the officer's integrity is reported to be beyond doubt in the integrity column.
(c) In case of persons already provisionally included in the Select List under what conditions their integrity should be certified or withheld?
3. The issue relating to grant of integrity certificate and inclusion of State Government Civil Service officers on a provisional basis in the Select List for promotion to IAS is governed by the statutory provisions contained in the proviso to Regulation 5(5) of the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 and the Explanation there under, framed inter alia taking into account the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgement in Janaki Raman's case. The issues raised in the reference as above as such stand clarified as under ad seriatim:
(a) It will not be order to withhold integrity certificate on account of any foreseeable action under the Prevention of Corruption Act by the competent court. The fact as to whether or not charges under the PС Act have been framed against the officer concerned by the court in terms of the provisions in the PC Act should alone form the basic criterion in order to OA-
1982/2024 22 OA-1982/2024 arrive at a conclusion on the grant or denial of the Integrity certificate to the officers concerned.
17O.A. No. 4163/2024
(b) Adverse remarks in the ACRs on account of misbehaviour etc. should not be the basis for denial of integrity certificate in favour of the State Civil Service officers. The Selection committee will duly consider the adverse remarks as one of the aspects while doing the overall relative assessment of the service records of the officer concerned. The grant of Integrity Certificate should be related to the entries in the ACRS in the integrity column and its logical conclusion as also the situations dealt with in the Explanation below proviso to Regulation 5(5) of the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, as amended from time to time.
(c) In case of a person already provisionally included in the Select List his integrity certificate should be issued or withheld depending on whether the conditions leading to the inclusion of his name as provisional in the Select List continue to exist or not." The above letter is written by the Under Secretary to Government of India, in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training) to the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Department of Personnel & AR. The letter further discloses that the State of Bihar had sought clarification regarding issuance of integrity certificate to SCS officers for promotion to IAS, on the issues enumerated in clauses
(a), (b) and (c) of para 2, and thereafter clarification in respect of the above issues was given in para 3 (a), (b) and (c). We find that the contentions in para 3 are more important. It is categorically contended that grant of integrity certificate and inclusion of SCS officers on provisional basis in the Select List for promotion to IAS 18 O.A. No. 4163/2024 is governed by the statutory provision contained in the proviso and Explanations to Regulation 5(5) of the Regulations of 1955, and the proviso and Explanations have been framed inter alia taking into account the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgement in K. V. Jankiraman's case. The Apex Court in K. V. Jankiraman (supra) held that sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only if charge memorandum or chargesheet is filed. Relevant observations are contained in para 16 of the judgment, which read 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 chargememo/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 19 O.A. No. 4163/2024 appellant-authorities that when there are serious allegations and it takes time to collect necessary evidence to prepare and issue charge-memo/chargesheet, 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 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. It was then contended on behalf of the authorities that conclusions Nos. 1 and 4 of the Full Bench of the Tribunal are inconsistent with each other. Those conclusions are as follows: (AТС р.
196, para 39) "(1) consideration for promotion, selection grade, crossing the efficiency bar or higher scale of pay cannot be withheld merely on the ground of pendency of a 20 O.A. No. 4163/2024 disciplinary or criminal proceedings against an official;
(2) *** (3) *** (4) the sealed cover procedure can be resorted to only after a charge memo is served on the concerned official or the charge-
sheet filed before the criminal court and not before;"
8.4 The DoP&T, after taking note of the decision of the Apex Court in K. V. Jankiraman (supra), issued office memorandum dated 14.09.1992, and thereafter issued another memorandum dated 02.11.2012 in conformity with the decision of the Apex Court. Para 2 of the office memorandum dated 14.09.1992 reads as follows:
"2. At the time of consideration of the cases of Government servant for promotion details of Government servant in the consideration zone for promotion falling under the following category should be specifically brought to the notice of the Departmental Promotion Committee:
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 21 O.A. No. 4163/2024
iii) Government servants in respect of whom prosecution for criminal charge is pending."
9. As stated earlier, in our considered opinion, the GNCTD was not justified in withholding the Integrity Certificate of the applicant vide communication dated 12.06.2023. Be that as it may, the GNCTD subsequently communicated to respondent no. 1 a fresh Integrity Certificate dated 01.03.2024. This certificate was issued and forwarded within the validity period of the Select List of 2020. Therefore, the respondents could not have treated the applicant's induction to the IAS of the Joint AGMUT Cadre as provisional. The respondents ought to have appointed the applicant to the IAS of the Joint AGMUT Cadre (UT Segment) for the Select List of 2020, along with all consequential benefits.
10. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we quash and set aside the notification dated 27.02.2024 (A- 1) to the extent the same contain a note to treat the inclusion of applicant in select list as approved by President of India for appointment of applicant to IAS as provisional and direct the respondents to appoint the applicant to IAS unconditionally from due date with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay. This exercise shall 22 O.A. No. 4163/2024 be completed by the respondents as earlier as possible, and in any case, within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 10.1 With the aforesaid directions, the present OA stands disposed of. Pending MA(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Rajinder Kashyap) ( Justice Ranjit More ) Member (A) Chairman gm