Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
Gali Babu vs Military Engineer Services (Mes) on 26 February, 2026
1
OA.No.416/2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH, HYDERABAD
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.020/00416/2023
ORDER RESERVED ON 27.01.2026
DATE OF ORDER: 26.02.2026
HON'BLE DR. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Gali Babu, aged 58 years
S/o (Late) Gali Venkateswarlu
Working as Director, HQ Chief Engineer
Military Engineer Services
Indian Coast Guard, Visakhapatnam
D.No.39-4-2/2, Plot No.18, Near Varma Complex
Murali Nagar, Visakhapatnam - 530 007. .....Applicant
(By Advocate: Smt. K.Parvathi)
Vs.
1. Union of India through the Secretary
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions
Department of Personnel & Training
Govt. of India, North Block, New Delhi.
2. The Secretary
Department of Personnel & Training
Secretariate of Appointments
Committee of the Cabinet (ACC)
North Block, New Delhi.
3. The Secretary
Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India
South Block, New Delhi-11.
4. The Engineer-in-Chief
Engineer-in-Chief Branch
Military Engineering Service
Directorate General (Personnel)
Kashmir House, New Delhi - 110011. ....Respondents
(By Advocate: Sri D.Laxmi Narayana Rao, Sr.PC for CG)
*****
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
PANDIRL
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING,
PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana,
STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN
HYDERABAD, Phone=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2
APALLI cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772
f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=
PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
SANDHYA document
Location:
Date: 2026.02.26 17:36:58+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
2
OA.No.416/2023
ORDER
PER: HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
a. To call for all the relevant and connected records relating to No.12/13/2023-EO(SMII), dt.1.7.2023 of the 2nd Respondent and set aside the same in so far as it relates to deferring the case of the applicant for being promoted as a Chief Engineer in Military Engineering Services (MES) in Level 14 of the Pay Matrix for the panel year 2023 as being arbitrary, illegal, unjust, contrary to the law, binding precedents, principles of natural justice, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
b. Consequently, direct the Respondents to promote the applicant as a Chief Engineer in Military Engineering Services (MES) in Level 14 of the Pay Matrix for the panel year 2023 on and from the date on which the candidates whose promotions have been approved by the Respondents in the impugned proceedings.
c. Further declare that the applicant is entitled to all the consequential benefits of seniority, further promotion and monetary benefits that flow from out of setting aside the proceedings impugned herein in so far as the applicant is concerned and grant of the relief prayed for herein and direct release of the same with interest from the date on which they become due and payable till the date of actual payment.
And pass such other and further order or orders as are deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble Tribunal under the circumstances of the case."
2. The facts of the case, in brief, as per the submissions of the applicant, are as follows:
i. The applicant was initially appointed, on 02.03.1990, to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, through Combined Engineering Services Examination, 1987, conducted by the UPSC. He rose up to Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2 APALLI cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772 f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.02.26 17:36:58+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 3 OA.No.416/2023 the level of Superintending Engineer (S.E.) and was due for retirement on superannuation on 30.04.2025. In the All India Seniority List, forwarded by the Directorate General (Personnel/E1(DPC), New Delhi, vide letter No.B/41023/AISL/SE/01 Jan 23/E1 (DPC), dt.12.01.2023, (Ann.A/2), his name has been shown at Serial No.04.
ii. The applicant was due for promotion to the next post of Chief Engineer (C.E.) for the Panel year 2023. The case of the applicant was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC, for short) in the UPSC along with those of his juniors and his name appeared to have been recommended for promotion. Though the DPC proceedings are not out in the public domain, clearance or recommendation by the DPC would be the prerequisite for final empanelment by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC, for short).
iii. Respondent No.2, vide order, dt.01.07.2023, informed that the ACC had deferred the empanelment of the applicant for being promoted to the grade of Chief Engineer (C.E.) in the Military Engineering Service (MES) in Level-14 of the Pay Matrix, for the panel year 2023, without giving any reason or justification. By the same order, the ACC approved the empanelment of other officers, including the cases of officers who were juniors to the applicant, for the year 2023. Based on such an approval, his juniors also would be getting promotion and would be assuming the charge of the higher post, after formal issue of posting order for which the process starts immediately after issue of the empanelment order.
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYAPANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2 APALLI cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772 f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.02.26 17:36:58+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 4 OA.No.416/2023 iv. The applicant claims to have maintained a fairly decent record of service and there was no charge memorandum pending against him and, precisely, for this reason, his name had been considered and recommended by the DPC. However, he had been served with a Show Cause Notice (SCN), dt.6.4.2019, relating to some construction agreement for the work done by him while discharging duties in the office of the G.E., Kanasar. Immediately, on receipt of the same, the applicant had submitted an elaborate explanation on 11.04.2019 and then, on 27.06.2019. As nothing was heard about the same, even as of date, it has to be presumed that the explanation/written defence was found satisfactory and there was nothing warranting action against the applicant. Since, there are no reasons forthcoming in the order for deferring his promotion and clearing the cases of persons much junior to him, the probable/plausible reason for the same could be the factum of issuance of an SCN relating to discharge of his duties.
v. The applicant states that, even if the above could be a reason, it would be totally illegal, as the case of the applicant could never be deferred.
As per the DoPT O.M., dt.02.11.2012, (Ann.A/3), promotion to a govt. employee can be denied/placed in a sealed cover only in three circumstances, i.e.,
(i) Govt. Servants should have been under suspension;
(ii) Govt. Servants in respect of whom charge sheet has been issued and disciplinary proceedings are pending, and Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2 APALLI cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772 f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.02.26 17:36:58+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 5 OA.No.416/2023
(iii) Govt. Servants in respect of whom prosecution on a criminal charge is pending.
vi. It is submitted that, in present case, none of the above circumstances is applicable for deferring the case of the applicant as he was, admittedly, neither under suspension nor were any disciplinary proceedings or criminal charges pending against the applicant. Thus, there is no justification for deferring his promotion.
vii. Vide the Show Cause Notice (Ann.A/4), the applicant was called upon to explain as to why disciplinary action should not be taken in respect of the allegation that, while performing the duties of Garrison Engineer (Project), Kanasar, he had executed project works, during 2002-2004, in which the constructions in question suffered premature distress, purportedly based on the report of the Technical Board of Officers (TBOs) after 15 years.
viii. The applicant promptly submitted replies, vide letters, dt.11.04.2019, and, 27.06.2019. He did not receive any communication, thereafter, and, as no charge memo is issued to the applicant till date, the only conclusion that could be drawn was that the author of the SCN/Competent Authority was fully satisfied with the explanation offered by him.
ix. According to the applicant, it appears that the ACC may not have been properly informed by the Vigilance Department, while submitting the proposal for empanelment and this resulted in deferring the case of the applicant and approval of the cases of juniors. The DPC has rightly Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2 APALLI cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772 f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.02.26 17:36:58+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 6 OA.No.416/2023 not taken cognizance of this information and cleared the case of the applicant.
x. As the applicant was due for retirement on 30 Apr., 2025, denial of promotion, to which he was rightfully entitled and which was recommended by the DPC, would cause serious impact on his well-
maintained career graph.
3. The applicant has questioned the correctness and legality of the impugned action by raising the following grounds for relief:
i. Consideration of an employee for promotion, in a fair manner, is a legal right, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Dwarka Prashad and Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2004 (1) ATJ (SC) 591, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows -
"Right to be considered for promotion on fair and equal basis without discrimination may be claimed as a legal and fundamental right under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India."
Therefore, deferment of his promotion to the post of Chief Engineer, along with the junior person, is totally illegal and arbitrary and violative of the Fundamental Rights of the applicant.
ii. The case of the applicant for promotion has been deferred without giving any reason and justification. The action of the State, without any reason, under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, is violative of the principles of natural justice as the duty to pass a speaking order is cast upon the Respondents.
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYAPANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2 APALLI cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772 f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.02.26 17:36:58+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 7 OA.No.416/2023 iii. The fact that there was no ambiguity at the level of the DPC is evident as it has cleared the name of the applicant. The whole action of the Respondents in passing the impugned order and not promoting the applicant to the post of C.E., despite recommendation of the DPC/UPSC, is totally illegal, arbitrary, and discriminatory in the eyes of law.
4. On notice, Respondents have appeared through their counsel and filed their reply statement, wherein they submit that -
i. The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for promotion to the grade of Chief Engineer (C.E.) from Superintending Engineer (S.E.) is conducted by the UPSC and approved by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) through the DoP&T. Total 41 officers were considered for filling up 25 vacancies for the vacancy year 2023. UPSC recommended 25 officers in the main panel and 11 officers in the extended panel.
ii. Further, DoP&T approved 20 officers from the main panel and 09 from the extended panel for promotion. Cases of 07 officers, in all, were deferred by the ACC, including 05 from the main panel and 02 from the extended panel, vide letter No.12/13/2023-EO(SM-II), dt.01.07.2023(Exhibit-I). The vacancies against all 07 officers, whose names are in the deferred list are still available as such.
iii. Disciplinary folders of the applicant, Sri Gali Babu, SE, are pending with the Ministry of Defence, for first stage advice of the Chief Vigilance Commission. As the Chief Engineer is a level-14 post in Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2 APALLI cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772 f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.02.26 17:36:58+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 8 OA.No.416/2023 the Senior Administrative Grade and is equivalent of the Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India, approval is required for empanelment.
iv. Respondents have accepted that the applicant is neither under suspension nor facing disciplinary proceedings and no charge sheet is pending against him. The case of the applicant has been recommended for disciplinary action by the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, South West Command, on the basis of the Court of Inquiry, which had investigated into the irregularities in the execution of work in the Contract Agreement Nos. relating to OTM accommodation, including all the OTM buildings, i.e., offices and storage pump, etc., of the same vintage and extra security wall at 27 FAD Kanasar.
v. Disciplinary folders of the applicant along with two of other blameworthy officers were submitted to the Ministry of Defence, vide note, dt.11.11.2020. M/o Defence had raised certain observation, vide their Note, dt.13.11.2020. Reply to these was furnished but the Ministry again returned the folders along with certain observations.
Headquarters Chief Engineer again submitted the disciplinary folders.
The folders of the applicant were forwarded to the M/o Defence, vide Note, dt.25.03.2022, which again raised certain observations and asked for disciplinary folders of 04 TEs involved in the case. Reply along with the disciplinary folders were forwarded to the Ministry, vide Note, dt.25.08.2022.
vi. It is also stated that the reply given by the applicant was analysed on merit and the disciplinary folders were submitted to the M/o Defence, Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2 APALLI cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772 f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.02.26 17:36:58+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 9 OA.No.416/2023 on 25.03.2022, for first stage advice of the Central Vigilance Commission. The status of the disciplinary case against Sri Gali Babu, SE, was informed to the Ministry, while processing his vigilance clearance. The Departmental Promotion Committee can devise their own method to evaluate the fitness of officers, based on vigilance clearance and Annual Performance Assessment Report grading.
vii. The reply statement of the Respondents concludes as follows -
"The applicant's name was considered in the DPC, with promotion deferred due to ongoing disciplinary proceedings which are under active progress with vacancy not filled up or kept in waiting for final outcome of the disciplinary proceedings."
5. Heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the materials placed on record.
6. Learned Counsel for the Applicant, in the course of arguments, has produced the citation in OA.No.1233 of 2022, wherein, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal, at Jammu, vide order, dt.25.07.2013, has dealt with a case with similar prayer for relief, as seen below:
"(i) Order No. 12/162021-EO(SM II) dated 30.07.2022 issued by respondent no.2 to the extent empanelment of the applicant for his promotion to the Grade of Chief Engineer in the Military Engineering Service (MES) in level 14 of the Pay Matrix for the panel year 2002 (Regular DPC) has been deferred, may kindly be set aside/quashed.
(ii) Appropriate directions may kindly be issued to the respondents to grant promotion to the applicant to the grade of Chief Engineer in the Military Engineering Service (MES) in level 14 of the Pay Matrix for the panel year 2002 (Regular DPC) w.e.f. the date the said promotion has been granted to the colleagues of the applicant with all retrospective consequential benefits.Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
PANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2 APALLI cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772 f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.02.26 17:36:58+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 10 OA.No.416/2023
2. The facts, in brief, leading to the instant case are that the applicant joined the Military Engineering Services as Assistant Executive Engineer (Buildings & Roads) on 01.08.1988. On 24.03.2021 (Annexure A-2), the CBI has registered an FIR No. RC0042021A0004 against the applicant amongst others on the basis of the preliminary enquiry no.PE0042020A0001 related to award of contract to lowest bidder. The CBI, after registration of FIR, has not done anything substantial in the matter. During the pendency of the aforesaid FIR, the respondent no. 2 considered the proposal of the Department of Defence with respect to empanelment of various officers for promotion to the grade of Chief Engineer in the Military Engineering Services (MES) ) in Level 14 of the Pay Matrix for the panel year 2021 (Review-cum-Supplementary DPC) and 2022 (Regular DPC). After according consideration, the respondent no.2 has issued the impugned order No. 12/162021-EO(SM II) dated 30.07.2022 whereby, amongst others, the promotion of the Applicant for his promotion to the grade of Chief Engineer in the Military Engineering Service (MES) in Level 14 of the Pay Matrix for the panel year 2022 (Regular DPC) has been deferred, without assigning any reason. The applicant filed a representation dated 11.08.2022, which has been forwarded by the Additional Director General (North) MES to the Director General (Pers)/EIB (Annexure A-3 colly). Having heard nothing from the respondents on his representation, the applicant has filed the present Original Application challenging the order dated 30.07.2022 whereby his promotion has been deferred.
3. The applicant has contended that the impugned order deferring promotion of the applicant to the grade of Chief Engineer is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of law inasmuch as it does not give any reason for deferment of the promotion. Reliance has been placed upon the following judgments of Hon‟ble Supreme Court.
(i) Madhya Pradesh Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others, AIR 1966 SC 671
(ii) S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 594
(iii) Union of India Vs. K.V. Jankiraman, (1991) 4 SCC 109
(iv) Union of India Vs. Sudha Salhan (Dr.) (1998) 3 SCC 394
4. The respondents have filed written statement stating therein that since the case against the applicant is pending before CBI ACB Jammu as such his promotion has been deferred by Appointment Cabinet Committee on this ground and it is Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2 APALLI cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772 f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.02.26 17:36:58+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 11 OA.No.416/2023 pertinent to mention here that vigilance clearance is the main aspect for consideration for promotion during the DPC proceedings.
x x x
6. The issue requires to be considered herein is as to whether the deferment of promotion of applicant to the higher grade on the basis of pendency of FIR NO.
RC0042021A0004 is in consonance with the legal proposition in this regard?
7. From the perusal of order dated 30.07.2022, it is evident that the empanelment of the applicant for promotion to the grade of Chief Engineer in the Military Engineering Service (MES) in Level-14 of the Pay Matrix for the panel year 2022 (Regular DPC) has been deferred. The respondents explained that the said deferment is because of the vigilance clearance certificate given by DG (Pers) E- inC‟s Br IHQ of MoD (Army) vide letter dated 18.04.2022, wherein it has been stated with respect to the applicant that :-
"The officer was involved in CBI, ACB, Jammu case vide FIR No. RC00420211A004 dated 24.03.2021 while in deputation in NHAI. The case is under investigation by CBI, Jammu, further details awaited from CBI, Jammu. "
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.V. Janakiraman, (supra) has discussed the issue as to when the criminal proceedings can be said to have commenced for the purpose of sealed cover procedure and held as under:-
"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 Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2 APALLI cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772 f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.02.26 17:36:58+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 12 OA.No.416/2023 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:
"(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 disciplinary or criminal proceedings against an official;
(2) Xxxxxx (3) Xxxxxx (4) the sealed cover procedure can be resorted only after a charge memo is served on the concerned official or the charge sheet filed before the criminal court and not before . ' There is no doubt that there is a seeming contradiction between the two conclusions. But read harmoniously, and that is what the Full Bench has intended, the two conclusions can be reconciled with each other. The conclusion no. 1 should be read to mean that the promotion etc. cannot be withheld merely because some disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending against the employee. To deny the said benefit, they must be at the relevant time pending at the stage when charge-memo/charge-sheet has already been issued to the employee. Thus read, there is no inconsistency in the two conclusions."
9. In the case of Union of India Vs. Sudha Salhan (Dr.)(supra), the Hon‟ble Supreme Court while reiterating the view taken in the case of K.V. Jankiraman (supra), has held as under:-
"If on the date on which the name of a person is considered by the Departmental promotion Committee for promotion to a higher post, such person is neither under suspension nor has any departmental proceedings been initiated against him, his name, if he is found meritorious and suitable, has to be brought on the select list and the „sealed cover‟ procedure cannot be adopted."
10. Now we advert to the facts of the present case. The CBI initially registered preliminary enquiry no. PE0042020A0001 in the year 2020 and after conducting the preliminary enquiry, the enquiry officer filed complaint with the SP, CBI, Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2 APALLI cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772 f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.02.26 17:36:58+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 13 OA.No.416/2023 Jammu with the recommendation of registration of FIR. On the basis of complaint, the CBI has registered an FIR dated 24.03.2021 against the applicant for commission of offences punishable under Section 420, 471 and 120-B of Ranbir Penal Code and Section 5(1)(d) of the J&K Prevention of corruption Act, Samvat 2006. However, no charge sheet till date has been filed against the applicant nor any departmental proceedings have been initiated against him by the respondents. Therefore, no disciplinary or criminal proceedings can be said to have commenced against the applicant so as to give any reason to respondents to defer the empanelment of applicant for promotion to the next higher grade. Thus, the ground taken by the respondents for deferment of empanelment of the applicant for promotion to the grade of Chief Engineer is wrong and illegal in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.V. Jankiraman (supra). The decision of respondents vide order dated 30.07.2022 is in the teeth of ratio of judgment in K.V. Jankiraman's case. The order dated 30.07.2022 is hereby quashed and set aside to the extent it defers the empanelment of the applicant for promotion to the grade of Chief Engineer for the panel year 2022 (Regular DPC). The respondent no. 3 is directed to consider the representation of the applicant dated 11.08.2022 for promotion to the next higher Grade, without being influenced by the fact of mere registration of an FIR against him, in view of the discussion herein above. Upon such consideration, if the applicant is found eligible for promotion by the respondents, the relevant benefit be granted to him from due date. The needful be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order since the applicant is due for superannuation on 31.10.2023. The Original Application is allowed. No costs."
7. It is argued by the applicant's counsel that his case is covered clearly by the decision in the cases of K.V. Janakiraman and Sudha Salhan (supra). Admittedly, in the present case, neither the applicant was under
suspension nor any charge memo had been issued to him in a disciplinary inquiry. The so-called SCN, dt.06.04.2019, also refers to matters pertaining to certain constructions carried out in the year 2004. The applicant in his reply, dt. 20.07.2015, to the SCN, has contended that the matter relates to execution of a contract handled by him, approximately Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2 APALLI cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772 f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.02.26 17:36:58+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 14 OA.No.416/2023 15 years back. It is also stated that documents that were provided to him, on his request, for perusal, did not have all the exhibits/appendices/ annexures. Further, Hqrs. C.E. of the Zone had intimated non-
availability of certain information/ documents. The applicant has also levelled allegations of lack of proper maintenance and upkeep of the buildings, which remained unoccupied for a couple of years after their construction. However, these are issues to be looked into during the D.E. and this Tribunal cannot enter into the domain of the Inquiry Officer.
During the pendency of the D.E., the applicant has retired.
8. The name of the applicant figures at Sl.No.4 in the All India Seniority List of Superintending Engineers, as on 01.01.2023 (Ann.A-V). The DPC duly considered his name for promotion and the ACC approved empanelment of officers for promotion to the grade of Chief Engineer in the Military Engineering Service, vide order, dt. 01.07.2023, wherein the case of the applicant, Shri Gali Babu, was deferred and his name was kept at Sl.No.1 among the officers, whose cases had been deferred.
Respondents have claimed in their reply statement that his promotion was deferred due to on-going disciplinary proceedings under active progress although no charge-sheet had been issued till that date.
9. As per the reply statement, we find that CVC advice had been awaited in the matter of the applicant. In its order, dt.12.10.2023, the M/o Defence had directed as follows-
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYAPANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2 APALLI cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772 f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.02.26 17:36:58+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 15 OA.No.416/2023 "STATEMENT OF BIO DATA IN R/O ALL DELINQUENT OFFICERS IN THE CASE IRREGULARITIES IN THE EXECUTION OF WORK IN CA NOS RELATING TO OTM TECH ACCN TO INCL ALL OTM BLDGS. IN EXPLOSIVE AREA & ADM AREA ( I.E. ESHS/MAGS, OFFICES, GD POSTS, PUMP HOUSES, SECURITY WALL ETC) AT 27 FAD, KANASAR-REG
1. Please refer to E-in-C's Branch letter No.78650/5775/2017SWC/E1D dated 01.06.2023 on subject matter.
2. In this regard it is stated that after examining the matter in depth and in acceptance of the 1st Stage advice of CVC vide OM No.023/DEF/016/2238 dated 25.08.2023 (copy enclosed) competent Disciplinary Authority has decided the following:
i. To initiate major penalty proceedings under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA), Rule 1965, against 03 Gp 'A' officers i.e (a) MES-439150 Shri SB Singh, SE the then GE Kanasar (b) MES-189637 Shri Gali Babu, SE the then GE Kanasar and (c) MES-266092 Shri RK Agarwal, SE the then GE Kanasar.
And ii. To intimate major penalty proceedings under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA), Rule 1965, against 02 Gp "B" officers
(a) MES-314778 Shri Sukhvinder Singh, AE and (b) MES-315627 Shri Ajay Gupta, AE.
And iii. To close the case against 05 officers i.e (a) MES-
186170 Shri SK Grover, CE, the then Dir (C), (b) MES-113512 Shri Prabhas Kumar, the TE, (c) MES- 509000 Shri Madal Lal, the then TE, (d) MES-438459 Shri SK Tripathi, CE, the then TE and (e) MES- 439624 Shri BS Laspal, the then TE.
3. Charge Memorandums in r/o Gp 'A' officers mentioned in para 2 (i) above are being issued separately.
4. In view of the above, it is requested to take further necessary action in r/o officers mentioned in para 2(ii) and 2(iii) above under intimation to this office.
5. This issues with the approval of Competent Authority."
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYAPANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2 APALLI cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772 f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.02.26 17:36:58+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 16 OA.No.416/2023
10. In respect of Sri Gali Babu, SE, the then GE (P) Kanasar, Charge Memo, dt.23.10.2023, was issued and served on him, vide letter, dt. 20.11.2023, of the O/o HQ Chief Engineer (CG), Visakhapatnam, and the same was acknowledged by the delinquent/applicant in Nov., 2023. It is also found that, prior to his superannuation on 30.04.2025, hearing in the DE under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965, had commenced, as per the notice of the first hearing, dt.11.05.2024.
11. It must be made clear that there is distinction between an employee's right to be considered for promotion and getting actual promotion.
DoP&T OM, dt.02.11.2012 annexed as Ann.A3 with the OA, contains clear cut instructions at Para-9 which states that -
"..before the officer is actually promoted it needs to be ensured that he/she is clear from vigilance angle and the provision of para 7 of O.M.No.22011/4/91-Estt.(A) dated 14.09.1992 are not attracted."
It is also clarified at Para-11 that -
"While consideration for promotion is a right of an employee but empanelment, deputation, posting and assignment for training (except mandatory training) is not a right of an employee and is decided keeping in view the suitability of the officer and administrative exigencies."
12. The Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Chennai, vide its order, dt.03.10.2024, passed by the Division Bench in OA.No.188/2015, (wherein one of us (Hon'ble VSK Kaumudi) was a Member), has held as under:
"16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has recently observed in its order, dated 23.07.2024, in Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors., Vs. Dharamdeo Das, as follows:Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
PANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2 APALLI cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772 f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.02.26 17:36:58+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 17 OA.No.416/2023 "18. It is no longer res integra that a promotion is effective from the date it is granted and not from the date when a vacancy occurs on the subject post or when the post itself is created. No doubt, a right to be considered for promotion has been treated by courts not just as a statutory right but as a fundamental right, at the same time, there is no fundamental right to promotion itself. In this context, we may profitably cite a recent decision in Ajay Kumar Shukla vs. Arvind Rai where, citing earlier precedents in Director, Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. vs. Pravat Kiran Mohanty and Others and Ajit Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Others, a three Judge Bench observed thus:
41. This Court, time and again, has laid emphasis on right to be considered for promotion to be a fundamental right, as was held by K. Ramaswamy, J., in Director, Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v.
Pravat Kiran Mohanty and Others in para 4 of the report which is reproduced below:
"4...........There is no fundamental right to promotion, but an employee has only right to be considered for promotion, when it arises, in accordance with relevant rules. From this perspective in our view the conclusion of the High Court that the gradation list prepared by the corporation is in violation of the right of respondent-writ petitioner to equality enshrined under Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution, and the respondent-writ petitioner was unjustly denied of the same is obviously unjustified."
x x x x x Further in the same order, it is stated, as follows:
"22. The spirit behind elevating the right for being considered for promotion to a fundamental right is enshrined in the principle of "equality of opportunity" in relation to matters of employment and appointment to a position under the State. Once employed, the employees are entitled for being considered for promotion to the next higher post subject to their satisfying the eligibility criteria, as per the applicable rules. Failure to consider an employee for promotion even after satisfying the eligibility criteria would violate her fundamental right. However, a clear distinction has been drawn between the stage of considering an employee for being promoted to taking the next step of recognizing the said right as a vested right for promotion. That is where the line has to be drawn. Stated differently, a right to be considered for promotion being a facet of the right to equal opportunity in employment and appointment, would have to be treated as a fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India but such a right cannot translate into a vested right of the employee for being necessarily promoted to the promotional post, unless the rules expressly provide for such a situation."Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
PANDIRL DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2 APALLI cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772 f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.02.26 17:36:58+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 18 OA.No.416/2023
13. Since the case of the applicant was duly considered by the DPC as well as by the ACC, it cannot be said that he has been denied his right to be considered for promotion. However, in the totality of the circumstances stated above, the department is well within its right to withhold his actual promotion.
14. Undoubtedly, his case for departmental action was in an advanced stage of consideration with the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) and the 1st Stage Advice of the CVC was issued, vide OM, dt.25.08.2023. Obviously, no Vigilance Clearance could be given to the applicant in such circumstances.
15. In view of the discussion above, the applicant has failed to make out a case. The OA is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No order as to costs.
(Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi) (Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
26.02.2026
/ps/pv/
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
PANDIRL
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2 APALLI cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772 f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2026.02.26 17:36:58+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0