Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Randhir Kumar Sinha vs Department Of Defence Production on 20 November, 2025
1
Item No. 02/C-4
O.A. No. 2427/2024
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
(Nainital Circuit Sitting)
O.A. No. 2427/2024
Reserved on: 04.11.2025
Pronounced on: 20.11.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
Randhir Kumar Sinha,
Aged 57 Years,
S/o Late Shri Ishwar Dayal Sinha,
Indian Ordnance Factory Service (1990 Batch),
Chief General Manager,
Indian Optel Limited,
Department of Defence Production,
Ministry
stry of Defence,
Raipur Road,
Dehradun - 248008.
...Applicant
(By Advocates:
Advocates: Mr. Tushar Ranjan Mohanty with Mr.
Naveen Kumar Vashisht)
Versus
1. Union of Inida,
The Secretary,
Department of Defence Production,
Ministry of Defence, South Block,
New Delhi - 110011.
2. The Chief Vigilance Officer,
Department of Ordanance (Coordination and Service),
Department of Defence Production,
Ministry of Defence, 10-A,
10 A, S. K. Bose Road,
Kolkata - 700001.
...Respondents
(By Advocates:
Advocate Mr. Thakur Virender Pratap Singh Charak,
Sr. CGSC with Ms. Shubra Parashar, Mr. Pushpinder
Singh Charak and Mr. Amit Kumar)
2
Item No. 02/C-4
O.A. No. 2427/2024
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J):
In the present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
"8.1. to allow the present application;
8.2. to quash and set aside the impugned Letter dated 14.05.2024 ofRespondent No. 2 [Annexure: A 14.05.2024 A-1];
8.3. to quash and set aside the impugned Letter dated 12.02.2024 ofRespondent No. 2 [Annexure: A A-2];
8.4. to grant all consequential benefits of the above quashing to the Applicant as permissible in law;
8.5. to direct direct the Respondents not to block/stop the Vigilance Clearance of the Applicant only because of the Criminal Case in question pending before the Court of Additional ChiefJudicial Magistrate Magistrate-VI, Patna City;
8.6. to direct the Respondent to pay suitable co compensation to the Applicant as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case;
8.7. to issue any such and further order/direct order/directions this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case; and 8.8. to allow exemplary costs ofthe application"
2. Narrating the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted as under:
2.1. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant, an officer of the Indian Ordnance Factory Service (1990 Batch), who is presently serving as Chief General Manager, India Optel Limited, Dehradun, under the Department of Defence Production, Ministry of Defence.3
Item No. 02/C-4 O.A. No. 2427/2024 The applicant has assailed the impugned orders dated 12.02.2024 and 14.05.2024 issued by Respondent No. 2, the Chief Vigilance Officer, whereby his vigilance clearance was denied. The said denial is founded on an order dated 27.04.2023 passed by the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VI, Magistrate VI, Patna City, taking cognizance in a private property dispute instituted by the applicant's cousin brother, which is purely civil in nature and unconnected with any of the applicant's offic official duties.
Notwithstanding that the Hon'ble High Court of Patna stayed the said cognizance order on 26.04.2024, the respondent again rejected the applicant's subsequent representation on 14.05.2024, thereby maintaining the denial of vigilance clearance.
2.2. Learned counsel contended that the impugned action has adversely affected applicant's service prospects, including his eligibility to appear in interviews for higher posts.. Adding further to the arguments, learned counsel submitted that the respondents were not justified in denying vigilance clearance to the applicant on the basis of a private, non-official non official civil dispute, particularly when the cognizance order relied upon has been stayed by the Hon'ble High Court of Patna.
4Item No. 02/C-4 O.A. No. 2427/2024 2.3. Learned counsel for the applicant applicant submitted that the impugned orders dated 12.02.2024 and 14.05.2024 are bad in law, being violative of the Office Memorandum dated 28.09.2022 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, which governs the procedure and conditions for grant off vigilance clearance. Under the said Office Memorandum, vigilance clearance cannot be denied in cases arising out of private complaints unless a charge sheet has been filed by the investigating agency, and no such charge sheet exists in the present case. 2.4. Learned counsel further submitted that tthe impugned orders are also contrary to various judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Tribunal, which have consistently held that vigilance clearance cannot be withheld in matters stemmi stemming from private disputes or in proceedings that stand stayed. 2.5. Learned counsel contended that the impugned orders have been issued by an incompetent authority, namely the Chief Vigilance Officer, who is junior in rank to the applicant, whose appointing appointing and disciplinary authority is the Hon'ble President of India, and hence the said orders are non est in law.
5Item No. 02/C-4 O.A. No. 2427/2024 2.6. Learned counsel further contended that the respondents have acted arbitrarily, without jurisdiction, and in violation of the principles of na natural justice, ignoring both the stay order of the Hon'ble High Court of Patna and the applicable DoPT guidelines.
2.7. The relevant portion of the stay order dated 26.04.2024 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Patna, reads as under:
under "3. In the meantime, meantime, the operation of the order dated
27.04.2023 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate VI, Patna City, Patna, in connection with Magistrate-VI, Gaurichak P.S. Case No. 275 of 2022 shall remain stayed, till further orders."
2.8. Concluding the arguments, learned l arned counsel for the applicant submitted that the impugned order dated 14.05.2024 is bad in law as it was not passed by the competent authority; the Minister concerned is the authority competent to grant vigilance clearance based on the comments received from the Vigilance Department. Accordingly, learned counsel for the applicant prayed for quashing and setting aside of the impugned rejection orders and a direction to the respondents to grant vigilance clearance with all consequential benefits to the applicant.
6Item No. 02/C-4 O.A. No. 2427/2024
3. Opposing the grant of relief, learned learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the preliminary objections raised in the e counter affidavit and contended that the impugned orders have been passed appropriately and in accordance with law. Learned counsel emphasized that the applicant had applied for the posts of Director (Operations) in Armoured Vehicles Nigam Limited (AVNL) and Advanced Weapons and Equipment India Limited (AWEIL), as well as for the posts of Chairman & Managing Director iin both AWEIL and AVNL. Pursuant to these applications, the Group-A A Division under the Directorate of Ordnance (Coordination & Services), New Delhi, sought the vigilance status of the applicant from the Vigilance Division, DoO (C&S), Kolkata. Upon examination examination of the documents, records, and the vigilance database, it was revealed that a case (P.S. Case No. 275 of 2022) against the applicant and others is pending before the Hon'ble ACJM ACJM-VI, Patna City.
The applicant and co-accused co accused had filed anticipatory bail petitions etitions numbered A.B.P. No. 4420/22, A.B.P. No. 4875/22, and A.B.P. No. 5178/22, which were subsequently rejected by the Hon'ble Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VI, Magistrate VI, Patna City, Patna, vide order dated 18.08.2022. The operative part of the said order is as follows--
7Item No. 02/C-4 O.A. No. 2427/2024 "Again I perused the certified copy of FIR as well as all the material available on record and considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I find that this case is not a fit case for anticipatory bail because anticipatory bai bail is not a blanket to cover the guilt of the society breakers. Obviously, there is tremendous increase in this type of offences in the society. After looking to the case with photocopy of the case diary having para nos. 1 1-14, all the witnesses of Section 161 161 of Cr.P.C. supported the prosecution case in to-to to to in para 1 1-4, 5 and 6 of the case diary.
Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances as well as material available on record, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Acc Accordingly, the anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioners is hereby rejected."
3.1. Learned counsel stated that subsequently, the Hon'ble ACJM-VI, VI, Patna City, vide order dated 27.04.2023 has recorded and directed as follows:
"Perused the case record, case diary and the final report. I find that the case is of civil nature but after perusal of para 1. 4 & 5 of the case diary: I find that there is para-1.
sufficient material on record to make out a prima facie case against the accused persons namely, Dee Deepak Kumar Sinha, Pradeep Kumar Sinha, Pyare Mohan Sahay and Randhir Kumar Sinha under Section 406/420/467/468/471/34 of IPC Olc is directed to issue summon against the accused persons. Put up on 16.09.23 for appearance of the accused persons."
3.2.. Learned counsel for the respondents drew the attention of this Bench to para 8 of the short reply/additional affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents and submitted that based on the sufficient material on record to make out a prima facie case, cognizance has been taken by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Magistrate-VI Patna City, Patna in connection with Gaurichak PS Case No. 275 of 2022 against the accused persons (including the 8 Item No. 02/C-4 O.A. No. 2427/2024 applicant) under the following Section 406/420/467/468/471/34 of IPC which deal with criminal offenses carrying provisions for imprisonment, and directed O/c to issue summons against the accused persons:
IPC Sections Heading Contents of the Section 406 Punishment for Whoever criminal breach commits of trust criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
420 Cheating and Whoever
dishonestly cheats and
inducing thereby
delivery of dishonestly
property induces the
person
deceived to
deliver any
property to
any person, or
to make, alter
or destroy the
whole or any
part of a
valuable
security, or
anything
which is
signed or
sealed. and
which is
capable of
being
converted into
a valuable
security, shall
be punished
with
imprisonment
9
Item No. 02/C-4
O.A. No. 2427/2024
of either
description for
a term which
may extend to
seven years,
and shall also
be liable to
fine
467 Forgery of Whoever
valuable forges a
security, will, document
etc. which
purports to be
a valuable
security or a
will, or an
authority to
adopt a son,
or which
purports to
give authority
to any person
to make or
transfer any
valuable
security, or to
receive the
principal,
interest or
dividends
thereon, or to
receive or
deliver any
money,
movable
property, or
valuable
security, or
any document
purporting to
be an
acquittance or
receipt
acknowledging
the payment
of money, or
an
acquittance or
receipt for the
delivery of any
movable
property or
valuable
security, shall
be punished
with
10
Item No. 02/C-4
O.A. No. 2427/2024
imprisonment
for life, or with
imprisonment
of either
description for
a term which
may extend to
ten years, and
shall also be
liable to fine.
468 Forgery for Whoever
purpose of commits
cheating forgery,
intending that
the document
or electronic
record forged
shall be used
for the
purpose of
cheating, shall
be punished
with
imprisonment
of either
description for
a term which
may extend to
seven years,
and shall also
be liable to
fine.
471 Using as Whoever
genuine a fraudulently
forged or dishonestly
document
ent or uses as
electronic genuine any
record document or
electronic
record which
he knows or
has reason to
believe to be a
forged
document or
electronic
record, shall
be punished
in the same
manner as if
he had forged
such
document or
electronic
record.
34 Acts done by When a
11
Item No. 02/C-4
O.A. No. 2427/2024
several persons criminal act is in furtherance done by of common several intention persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
3.3. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 28.09.2022, which directs that vigilance clearance must be decided on a case case-by-case basis, considering the sensitivity of the post, gravity of allegations, and circumstances where the investigating agency finds no substance, but the court does not allow closure of the FIR. There is no blanket immunity for government servants merely because they are accused in judicial proceedings. The stay order of the Hon'ble High Court, Patna, dated 26.04.2024, in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 10510 of 2024 (arising from P.S. Case No. 275 of 2022), only renders the original ACJM order of 27.04.2023 non non-
operative, not non-existent.
non 3.4. Learned counsel argued a that the he CVO issues vigilance status to the Cadre Controlling Authority, which then processes and grants cadre clearance; this procedure was followed in the present case. The applicant's contention 12 Item No. 02/C-4 O.A. No. 2427/2024 that the vigilance status was not issued by the comp competent authority is incorrect, and the letter dated 14.05.2024 merely reiterated that the vigilance status remained unchanged despite the Hon'ble High Court stay. 3.5. Learned counsel for the respondents further argued that the applicant was fully aware of the criminal case against him (P.S. Case No. 275 of 2022), having filed anticipatory bail petitions, and later acknowledged the case in writing to India Optel Limited before issuance of vigilance status on 13.12.2023. Therefore, the applicant's claim of ignorance gnorance is false. As the criminal case is still pending and the stay does not nullify it, the Learned counsel for the respondents urged that the OA is devoid of merit and it should be dismissed.
3.6. Learned counsel drew our attention to the Office Memorandum dated 28.09.2022. Clause (iv) (a) of the same reads as under:
"(iv) Vigilance clearance shall be decided on a case case-by-case basis by the Competent Authority, keeping in view the sensitivity of the purpose, the gravity of the charges, and the facts and circumstances in the following situations:
a. Where the investigating agency agency has found no substance in the allegation, but the Court refuses to permit closure of the FIR."
3.7. Concluding the arguments, learned counsel relied upon the decision rendered in Shree Chamundi Mopeds 13 Item No. 02/C-4 O.A. No. 2427/2024 Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Trust, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"An order of interim stay does not result in quashing of the impugned order. It only means that the order will not be operative from the date of the stay. It is only when the appeal is finally heard and the order is set aside that the judgment will no longer be operative."
4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
5. ANALYSIS :
5.1. Can serious offenses serve as a valid basis for denying vigilance clearance for empanelment or consideration for promotion?
5.2 .2 The Ministry of Personnel, Government of India, vide Office e Memorandum dated 02.11.
02.11.2012, issued clarifications regarding the stage at which a prosecution for a criminal charge can be considered as pending, in light of the principles laid down in UOI Vs. K.V. Jankiraman etc etc. 2010). Paras 6 and 8 of the OM dated (AIR 1991 SC 2010).
02.11.2012 provide pro 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 charges followed by either penal/conviction or exoneration/acquittal.
exoneration/acquittal. During the stage of investigation prior to issue of charge 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 Governmen Government to 14 Item No. 02/C-4 O.A. No. 2427/2024 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 memo/charge-sheet suspension. The pendency of prelimin preliminary investigation prior to that stage is not adopt adopt the sealed cover procedure.
8. As regards the stage when prosecution for a criminal charge can be stated to be pending, the said O.M. dated 14.9.92 does not specify the same and hence the definition of pendency pendency of judicial proceedings in criminal cases given in Rule 9 (6)(b)(i) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 is adopted for the purpose. The Rule 9 (6)(b)(i) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 provides as under:
under:-
"(b) judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted -
(i) in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which the complaint or report of a Police Officer, of which the Magistrate takes cognizance, is made"
.3 In the case of the Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman 5.3 (supra),, it was held that the the sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after the charge memo/charge sheet is issued. The relevant extract is reproduced hereinbelow:
"6.
6. On the first question, viz., as to when for the purposes of the sealed cover procedure the disciplinary/cri 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 charge-memo charge-
sheet in a criminal prosecution is issued to the employee that it can be said that the dep departmental proceedings/criminal prosecution is initiated against the employee. The sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after the charge-memo/charge charge memo/charge-sheet is issued. The pendency of preliminary investigation prior to that stage will not be sufficient 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 appellant-authorities that when there are serious allegations and it takes time to collect necessary evidence to prepare and issue charge charge- memo/charge sheet, it would not be in the interest of the memo/charge-sheet, purity of administration to reward the employee with a promotion, increment etc. does not impress us. The acceptance of this contention wouwould result in injustice to the employees in many cases. As has been the experience 15 Item No. 02/C-4 O.A. No. 2427/2024 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 pendin pending deliberately. Many times they never result in the issue of any charge-memo/charge-
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 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 not without a remedy."
(emphasis supplied) 5.4 .4 Vigilance clearance is a crucial instrument for the vigilance appraisal of an officer. Vide the Central Vigilance Commission's OM dated 12.07.1999, clearance is required from the Commission for all candidates/officers recommended by the PESB for appointment to any Board Board-
level position in Public Sector Enterprises (PSEs), regardless of whether they are currently holding a Board Board-
level or below Board-level Board level post. The requirement to seek vigilance clearance clearance from the Commission for these purposes is reiterated in the DoPT guidelines dated 29.10.2007 (for empanelment of non non-AIS officers) and 14.12.2007 (for empanelment of AIS officers). According to the DoPT guidelines, while considering cases for granting vigilance igilance clearance for the empanelment of AIS officers, members of the CCS, or for Board-level Board level positions in PSEs, the comments of the CVC must be obtained. The preconditions for denial of vigilance clearance are clearly 16 Item No. 02/C-4 O.A. No. 2427/2024 defined in these government guidelines.
guidelines. Vigilance clearance shall not be withheld except under the following circumstances:
I. The officer is under suspension.
II. The officer is on the Agreed List, provided that the position is mandatorily revisited after one year.
III. A chargesheet has been issued against the officer in a disciplinary proceeding, and the proceeding is pending.
IV. Orders for instituting disciplinary proceedings against the officer have been issued by the Disciplinary Authority, provided the chargesheet is served within three three months from the date of such order.
V. A chargesheet has been filed in a Court by the Investigating Agency in a criminal case, and the case is pending.
VI. Orders for instituting a criminal case against the officer have been issued by the Disciplinary Authority, provided the chargesheet is served within three months from the initiation of proceedings.17
Item No. 02/C-4 O.A. No. 2427/2024 VII. Sanction for investigation or prosecution has been granted by the Competent Authority in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act or any other criminal matter.
VIII. An FIR has been filed, or a case registered by the concerned Government against the officer, provided the chargesheet is served within three months from the date of filing/registration.
IX. The officer is involved in a trap/raid case on charges of corruption, and the investigation is pending.
X. Vigilance clearance shall not be withheld solely due to an FIR filed on the basis of a private complaint unless a chargesheet has been filed by the investigating agency, provided there are no contrary directions from a competent court.
XI. Vigilance clearance shall not be withheld even after sanction for prosecution if the investigating agency has been unable to complete its investigations and file charges within two years. In such cases, vigilance ance clearance entitles the officer only to consideration for non-sensitive non sensitive posts and premature 18 Item No. 02/C-4 O.A. No. 2427/2024 repatriation to the cadre, and not for any other dispensation listed in Para 2(1) of the guidelines.
5.5 The present case does not involve well well-defined circumstances;
ances; that is, there are neither any departmental proceedings pending nor contemplated that would require the adoption of the sealed cover procedure. Even the issuance of summons for the alleged serious offenses, following the rejection of the closure rep report, has yet to undergo trial or be legally established. The mere rejection of anticipatory bail in the matter cannot be relied upon in the counter-affidavit affidavit to deny vigilance clearance. It is also not contended by the respondents that the applicant is und under suspension. Moreover, the respondents have overlooked the fact that the said summoning orders have been stayed by the Hon'ble High Court of Patna under its powers pursuant to Section 482 of the CrPC.
5.6 In an attempt to justify the denial of vigilance clearance, the learned counsel for the respondents has placed significant nificant reliance on the Office Memorandum dated 28.09.2022. Clause (iv) (a) of the same reads as follows:
"(iv) Vigilance clearance shall be decided on a case case-by-
case basis by the Competent Authority, keeping in view the sensitivity of the purpose, the gravity of the charges, and the facts and circumstances, in the following 19 Item No. 02/C-4 O.A. No. 2427/2024 situations:
a. Where the investigating agency gency has found no substance in the allegation, but the Court refuses to permit closure of the FIR."
The said clause has been reiterated in the revised guidelines issued by the DoPT on 09.10.2024, specifically under Clause 9(c).
5.7 .7 In arriving at a decision decision to deny clearance on a "case "case-
by-case case basis," taking into account the stay of the criminal trial by the Hon'ble High Court of competent jurisdiction, it may be argued that the stay, by itself, does not automatically justify the grant of vigilance clearan clearance. "Case by case" is a well-known well known English idiom usually used in circumstances where an overall rule cannot be applied but where matters are considered by individual instances instances.
5.8 Illustrative case law on the concept of "Case by case"
are as under:-
under 5.8.1 "Charged in a Florida State Court with a noncapital felony, the petitioner appeared without funds and without counsel and requested the Court to appoint counsel for him; this request was denied on the ground that state law permitted appointment of counsel for indigent defendants only in capital cases. The petitioner conducted his own defense as well as could be expected of a layman, but he was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment. 20
Item No. 02/C-4 O.A. No. 2427/2024 Subsequently, he applied to the State Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that his conviction violated his rights under the Federal Constitution. The State Supreme Court denied all relief. Held: The right of an indigent defendant in a criminal trial to have the assistance of counsel is a fundamental right essenti essential to a fair trial, and the petitioner's trial and conviction without the assistance of counsel violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455, overruled." United States Supreme Court - GIDEON v. WAINWRIGHT (1963), decided on March 18, 1963.
196 (Significance:
Significance: The Gideon case is relevant to the "case-by-case"
"case case" approach because it overruled the prior decision in Betts v. Brady.
Brady.) 5.8.2 In Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly Twombly, a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case from 2007, the Court established a new standard for pleading in federal court under Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The ruling emphasized that a plaintiff must provide sufficient factual detail in their complaint to show that their claim is plausible, rather than merely conceivable, moving away from the more lenient 'no set of facts' standard previously applied. U.S. Supreme Court cases thereby altered federal civil procedure by requiring a plaintiff's complaint to a allege facts that make a claim "plausible," not just possible. 21 Item No. 02/C-4 O.A. No. 2427/2024 Determining this "plausibility" is a context context-specific task, requiring judges to assess the factual allegations of each individual complaint on a case-by-case case- basis. This approach replaced a more mechanical, uniform standard. 5.8.3 The Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment mandating a "case-by-case case basis" approach for information disclosure requests under the Right to Information (RTI) Act is the landmark decision in Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (Civil Appeal Nos. 10044, 10045 of 2010 and 2683 of 2010), delivered on November 13, 2019. This judgment applies specifically in cases where personal information is involved.
5.9 It is a rule of individual consideration, allowing flexibility and discretion without any predetermined approach. The "case "case-by-case case basis" approach is a fundamental principle of justice and fairness, enabling a nuanced and fact-specific fact specific assessment that respects due process and legal principles, rather than applying a broad, sweeping rule or a rigid definition. 5.10 The fact remains that the stay has been operative w.e.f. 26.04.2024, under which the order rejecting the closure report and the summoning has been stayed. 22 Item No. 02/C-4 O.A. No. 2427/2024 Moreover, the respondents respondents have not sought any comments from the Vigilance Commission to date. Applying the "case "case-
by-case"
case" principle, vigilance clearance cannot be withheld indefinitely pending the outcome of a criminal trial or the quashing of an FIR. There is no "clear a and convincing evidence" to conclude that the applicant is prima facie guilty of the charges, sufficient to deny vigilance clearance.
6.. CONCLUSION :
6.1 In view of the foregoing discussions, the present O.A. is allowed to the extent that the interim relief granted vide order dated 14.08.2024 is made absolute, until such time as the interim stay granted by the Hon'ble High Court of Patna in favor of the applicant is either vacated or modified, and/or the petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is disposed of, whichever occurs earlier.
6.2. Pending M.A.s, if any, shall stand disposed of. No costs.
(Dr. Anand S. Khati) (Manish Garg) Member (A) Member (J) /sm/as/