Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Sanjay Pandey vs Central Ground Water Board on 30 January, 2026
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
O.A. No. 63/458/2022
Chandigarh, this the 30th day of January, 2026
Reserved on: 17.11.2025.
HON'BLE MR. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA, MEMBER (A)
Sanjay Pandey son of Late Sh. Ramayan Pandey, age 48 years,
presently working as Scientist-B, Office of Central Ground Water
Board, NHR Dharmshala-176215, (Group - B).
...Applicant
(BY ADVOCATE: Mr. Rishav Sharma)
VERSUS
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources,
Government of India, New Delhi.
2. The Central Ground Water Board through its Chairman, Bhujal
Bhawan, NH-IV, Faridabad, Haryana.
3. Union Public Service Commission through its Secretary, UPSC Bhavan,
Shahjahan Road, New Delhi.
...Respondents
(BY ADVOCATES: Mr. Nand Lal Thakur (Through V.C) for R-1&2 and Mr.
Nitin Thatai (Through V.C) for R-3)
ORDER
Per: RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J):
1. The applicant has approached this Tribunal by way of instant O.A, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, seeking the following relief:
"(i) Annexure A-1 dated 07.04.2022 to the extent it does not include the name of the applicant for consideration for being considered for promotion from Scientist-C to Scientist-D from 01.01.2013 when the juniors are being considered be quashed and set aside.
(ii) A direction be issued to the respondents to open the sealed cover of the applicant for in-situ promotion to the grade of Scientist-C under Flexible Complementing Scheme in pursuance of the personal talk held before the Board of Assessment, UPSC, New Delhi on 05.11.2018.
(iii) A further direction be issued to the case of the respondents to consider the applicant for in-situ promotion to Scientist-D after opening the sealed cover BHANU PARTAP 2026.02.05 12:25:31+05'30' 2 of Scientist-C and if found fit to consider him for promotion as Scientist-D.
(iv) The applicant be held entitled to all the consequential benefits from the due date the same are being granted to the juniors.
(v) That this Hon'ble Tribunal may also pass any other order for the grant of relief to the applicant which it may deem fit in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
(vi) That cost of the application may also be awarded in favour of the applicant."
2. Brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicant are that the applicant joined the service as Assistant Hydrogeologist on 31.07.2000. He was subsequently promoted under the Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCS) applicable to Group 'A' and 'B' services of the Government of India, to the post of Scientist-B w.e.f. 01.01.2004. His pay was accordingly fixed vide office order dated 23.06.2017 (Annexure A-4), which was issued in compliance with the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 06.12.2016.
3. It is submitted that there was a seniority dispute in the cadre of Assistant Hydrogeologists, on account of which the applicant, along with ten others, filed O.A. No. 1182 of 2012 (Anmol Sharma vs. Union of India & Ors.), which was decided on 26.04.2014. During the pendency of the said O.A., the respondents issued a revised seniority list on 14.02.2014 and extended consequential benefits to the applicants therein. The Tribunal directed that the applicants would be entitled to the same benefits as had been extended to their juniors in the promotional scales, consequent upon the revision of the seniority list. The order dated 26.04.2014 is placed on record as Annexure A-6.
4. Pursuant to the above, the respondents issued a seniority list in the cadre of Assistant Hydrogeologists in Level-8 as on 01.01.2021 BHANU PARTAP 2026.02.05 12:25:31+05'30' 3 (Annexure A-7), wherein the name of the applicant figures at Serial No. 1. It is further submitted that the seniority list of Assistant Hydrogeologists (Group-B) as on 01.04.2017 (Annexure A-8) reflects that the juniors to the applicant have been considered for promotion to the grade of Scientist-D, whereas the applicant's name figures at Serial No. 4. It is further submitted that the applicant came to be implicated in a CBI case registered under Section 120-B IPC and Sections 7, 12, and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Consequently, he was placed under suspension w.e.f. 11.10.2017. The allegations were that the applicant, along with three others, conspired to demand illegal gratification of ₹1.5 lakh from one Sh. Swaraj Kandoi, Director, Vrishti Beverages, Gurugram, for obtaining NOC/permission from the CGWA for industrial use of groundwater. The applicant was arrested on 11.10.2017, sent to judicial custody, and was subsequently released on bail by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CRM-M-46989-2017 vide order dated 21.12.2017. The final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed by the CBI before the Special Judge, CBI, Chandigarh on 07.12.2017, and a copy thereof was supplied to the applicant on 07.10.2018. During the pendency of the criminal proceedings, the applicant became due for in-situ promotion to Scientist-C, and accordingly appeared before the Board of Assessment for personal interaction on 05.11.2018. However, since he was under suspension, his result was kept in sealed cover. The applicant challenged his suspension before this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1288 of 2019, which was allowed vide order dated 22.07.2021 (Annexure A-9), directing reinstatement with all consequential benefits. In compliance with BHANU PARTAP 2026.02.05 12:25:31+05'30' 4 the Tribunal's directions, the applicant was reinstated in service vide order dated 12.11.2020 (Annexure A-3) and rejoined duties on 16.11.2020. It is submitted that the CBI Court framed charges against the applicant on 21.12.2020. Thereafter, the applicant submitted a representation dated 07.06.2021 (Annexure A-10) for opening of the sealed cover pertaining to the personal talk for Scientist-C held on 05.11.2018. The same was forwarded by the competent authority to the respondent department vide letter dated 18.06.2021.
5. The respondents, vide office order dated 17.12.2021 (Annexure A-11), conveyed approval for revocation of suspension and for treating the suspension period from 09.01.2018 onwards as duty for all consequential benefits. The applicant again submitted a representation dated 20.01.2022 (Annexure A-12), seeking opening of the sealed cover of his personal talk held on 05.11.2018, which was duly forwarded vide letter dated 03.02.2022 (Annexure A-13). Subsequently, vide letter dated 28.03.2022 (Annexure A-14), the respondents directed the Head of Office to grant all consequential benefits from 09.01.2018 onwards.
6. In the meanwhile, the applicant submits that he also became due for promotion from Scientist-C to Scientist-D under the FCS, and the respondents circulated a list of officers to be considered for submission of consolidated AWRs vide letter dated 07.04.2022 (Annexure A-1). However, the applicant's name was omitted from the said list.
7. The applicant submits that as on the crucial dates for consideration (01.01.2009 and 01.01.2013), neither any charge-sheet nor BHANU PARTAP 2026.02.05 12:25:31+05'30' 5 criminal proceedings were pending against him. He submits that the respondents are bound to open the sealed cover for his promotion to Scientist-C w.e.f. 01.01.2009, and thereafter consider him for Scientist-D w.e.f. 01.01.2013, at par with his juniors.
8. The applicant has made multiple representations, including the one dated 21.04.2022, requesting the respondents to open the sealed cover of the Board of Assessment held on 05.11.2018, but no decision has been taken thereon till date.
9. The applicant has relied upon DoPT O.Ms dated 14.09.1992 and 06.11.2007 (Annexures A-15 and A-16). Since the applicant was not facing any such proceedings as on 01.01.2009 or 01.01.2013, it is submitted that the sealed cover procedure is contrary to law. The applicant has relied upon judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Delhi Jal Board vs. Mahinder Singh (2000) 4 SCT 704, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court elaborated the correct application of sealed cover procedure (Annexure A-17). It is further submitted that charges in the CBI case were framed only on 21.12.2020, whereas the due date for promotion was 01.01.2013. Hence, denial of promotion is unjustified, particularly when the proceedings have been stayed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court vide order dated 07.07.2021 (Annexure A-18). Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Chaman Lal Goyal, 1995 (1) SCSLJ 233, held that delay in departmental proceedings not attributable to the employee should not deprive him of promotion. The applicant contended that the stay of criminal proceedings by the Hon'ble High Court clearly shows that the delay is not attributable to the applicant, and therefore, the respondents cannot rely upon BHANU PARTAP 2026.02.05 12:25:31+05'30' 6 the pendency of the criminal case to deny him promotion. The applicant has also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. K.V. Jankiraman, AIR 1991 SC 2010.
10. Respondents No.1 and 2 have filed written statement wherein it is submitted that while the applicant's case for promotion to Scientist-C was under consideration, a criminal case was registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Anti-Corruption Branch, Chandigarh, vide FIR No. RCCHG2017A0020 dated 10.10.2017, under Section 120-B IPC and Sections 7, 12 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The allegations pertained to criminal conspiracy, demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, and misuse of official position.
11. It is submitted that the FIR alleged that the applicant, along with Sh. Chandra Prakash Midha, Technician, entered into a criminal conspiracy for taking illegal gratification from private industrial units in Haryana and Punjab for facilitating forwarding of applications with favourable recommendations to the Central Ground Water Authority (CGWA) for issuance of NOC/permission for abstraction of groundwater for industrial use. Consequent upon registration of the FIR, the applicant was arrested on 11.10.2017, produced before the learned Special Judge, CBI, Chandigarh, and was remanded to police custody and thereafter to judicial custody. Searches were conducted under Section 165 Cr.P.C., and official as well as personal files of the applicant, including the file pertaining to M/s Vrishti Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Gurugram, were seized by the CBI.
BHANU PARTAP 2026.02.05 12:25:31+05'30'
7
12. The applicant was placed under deemed suspension w.e.f.
10.10.2017, vide order dated 16.11.2017 issued by the competent authority in the Ministry. The respondents duly intimated the Ministry regarding the arrest, custody and subsequent developments through communications dated 11.10.2017, 16.10.2017 and 23.10.2017.
13. During the period of suspension, the applicant sought enhancement of subsistence allowance, which was duly considered. His subsistence allowance was enhanced from 50% to 75% of gross salary w.e.f. 11.07.2018, vide office order dated 31.07.2018, in accordance with the rules. His subsequent request for enhancement to 100% was also examined in accordance with the applicable provisions. The applicant also submitted representations seeking revocation of suspension and reinstatement.
14. It is submitted that a Review Committee was constituted to periodically review the suspension of the applicant and the subsistence allowance payable to him. The Committee met on 26.08.2019 and 27.08.2019, examined all relevant records, and reviewed the suspension status on 19.11.2019, keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations, the fact of arrest, judicial custody, filing of charge-sheet, and grant of sanction for prosecution.
15. Respondents submit that at the time when the Board of Assessment considered in-situ promotion to Scientist-C on 06.11.2018, the applicant was under deemed suspension and facing criminal proceedings.
16. Respondents No.1 and 2 submit that the communication dated 07.04.2022, whereby officers were called upon to submit AWRs for consideration to Scientist-D, was issued strictly in accordance with BHANU PARTAP 2026.02.05 12:25:31+05'30' 8 the prevailing eligibility conditions. As the applicant's vigilance status was not clear on the relevant date, his name was rightly not included in the said list.
17. Respondent No.3 filed reply wherein it is submitted that a proposal for constituting a Board of Assessment to consider in-situ promotion under FCS from Scientist 'B' to Scientist 'C' for the eligibility years 2009 to 2013 was received by the UPSC on 02.05.2018. The applicant's name was included in the eligibility lists forwarded by the Department.
18. At the time of forwarding the proposal, the Department specifically informed the Commission that an FIR dated 10.10.2017 had been registered by the CBI, Chandigarh, under Section 120-B IPC and Sections 7, 12 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, alleging criminal conspiracy, illegal gratification and misuse of official position by the applicant. It was further intimated that the applicant had been arrested on 11.10.2017, placed under judicial custody, and was under
suspension w.e.f. 10.10.2017.
19. A meeting of the Board of Assessment was held on 05.11.2018 under the aegis of the UPSC. The BoA assessed the suitability of all eligible officers, including the applicant, for the relevant eligibility years. However, in view of the pending criminal prosecution and vigilance proceedings, the BoA adopted the sealed cover procedure in the case of the applicant strictly in accordance with the DoP&T instructions contained in OMs dated 14.09.1992 and 02.11.2012.
The sealed cover was duly forwarded to the Department on 06.11.2018.
BHANU PARTAP 2026.02.05 12:25:31+05'30' 9
20. Respondent No.3 submits that the sealed cover procedure was adopted strictly in compliance with DoP&T OM dated 14.09.1992 and OM dated 02.11.2012, which mandate resort to sealed cover in the following circumstances:
(i) Government servant under suspension;
(ii) Government servant in respect of whom a charge sheet has been issued and the Disciplinary proceedings are pending;
(iii) Government servant in respect of whom prosecution for a criminal charge is pending.
21. In the present case, the Department had informed UPSC that prosecution proceedings initiated by the CBI were pending against the applicant and vigilance clearance had been withheld. Consequently, the sealed cover procedure was mandatory and not discretionary.
22. It is further submitted that the opening of sealed cover is governed by para 3 of the DoP&T OM dated 14.09.1992, which provides on conclusion of the disciplinary case/criminal prosecution, which results in dropping of allegations against the Government servant, the sealed cover or covers shall be opened.
23. Respondent No.3 relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman (AIR 1991 SC 2010), wherein it has been categorically held that an employee has no vested right to promotion, but only a right to be considered, and that an employee facing criminal or disciplinary proceedings cannot claim parity with others having an unblemished record.
24. It is submitted that although the applicant's suspension was subsequently revoked pursuant to orders of this Tribunal in OA No. BHANU PARTAP 2026.02.05 12:25:31+05'30' 10 60/1288/2019, the revocation of suspension does not automatically entitle the applicant to opening of the sealed cover, particularly when criminal prosecution is still pending. A proposal for constituting a BoA for in-situ promotion from Scientist 'C' to Scientist 'D' was received by UPSC from the Ministry on 25.05.2022. The applicant's name was not included in the proposal forwarded by the Department. Accordingly, the BoA meeting held on 07.07.2022 considered only those officers whose names were duly sponsored by the Administrative Ministry, and recommendations were communicated to the Ministry on the same date.
25. UPSC submits that the feeder grade for promotion to Scientist 'D' is Scientist 'C', with five years' regular service. Since the applicant has not yet been promoted to Scientist 'C', his case could not have been considered for promotion to Scientist 'D' by the Commission. The inclusion or exclusion of names in the proposal is entirely within the domain of the Administrative Ministry, and UPSC has no authority to suo motu include any officer.
26. Respondent No.3 emphasizes that the issuance of promotion orders, opening of sealed cover, grant of notional or consequential benefits, and decisions following exoneration fall exclusively within the administrative domain of the Ministry of Jal Shakti. The Commission's role is confined to conducting the BoA and tendering its recommendations based on the inputs received.
27. The applicant filed rejoinder reiterating the averments made in the Original Application, contending that mere registration of an FIR on 10.10.2017 could not have operated as a bar to his promotion, particularly when the promotion under FCS had become due much BHANU PARTAP 2026.02.05 12:25:31+05'30' 11 prior thereto, i.e. w.e.f. 01.01.2014. It is submitted that the charge against the applicant was framed only on 21.12.2020 and, therefore, prior to that date, there was no legally sustainable ground to deny him the benefit of promotion which had accrued in his favour. The applicant contends that, despite the setting aside of suspension and grant of consequential benefits, the respondents failed to open the sealed cover and failed to grant him promotion. It is further submitted that the applicant's juniors and batchmates were granted in-situ promotion to the grade of Scientist 'D', vide order dated 26.07.2022, whereas the applicant's case was again ignored.
28. The applicant specifically argues that, as on the crucial date when promotion under FCS became due to him (01.01.2014), no criminal case was pending, since the FIR itself was registered only on 10.10.2017. It is submitted that the respondents have failed to specifically deny several material averments made in the Original Application, and such non-denial amounts to deemed admission, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in BSNL v. Abhishek Shukla, (2009) 5 SCC 368.
29. On these premises, the applicant reiterates that the action of the respondents in withholding his promotion, continuing the sealed cover and denying him in-situ promotion to the grades of Scientist 'C' and thereafter Scientist 'D', despite promotion of his juniors, is arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in law.
30. Heard learned counsel for both sides and gone through the material available on record.
31. From the pleadings itself, it is admitted that the applicant had joined the service as Assistant Hydrogeologist on 31.07.2000.
BHANU PARTAP 2026.02.05 12:25:31+05'30' 12 Thereafter he was promoted to the post of Scientific B with effect from 01.01.2004. In compliance to the order passed by this Tribunal in O.A 1182 of 2012, the revised seniority list was issued on 14.02.2014 and ultimately the respondents issued the seniority list in the cadre of Assistant Hydrogeologists in Level - i as on 01.01.2021 (Annexure A-7) and the name of the applicant figured at Serial No.1. On 11.10.2017 the applicant was suspended as the applicant was implicated in a CBI case registered under Section 120-B IPC and Sections 7, 12, and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C was filed by the CBI before Special Judge, CBI, Chandigarh on 07.10.2018. The applicant was due for in-situ promotion to Scientist 'C' and accordingly appeared before the Board of Assessment for personal interaction on 05.11.2018 but the result of the applicant was kept in a sealed cover.
32. The applicant filed O.A 1288 of 2019, challenging his suspension, which was allowed on 22.07.2021 (Annexure A-9) and the applicant was reinstated in service vide order dated 12.11.2020 (Annexure A-3). Thereafter many representations were made by the applicant for opening of the Sealed Cover but no action was taken. The respondents vide order dated 17.12.2021 (Annexure A-11) conveyed approval for revocation of suspension and treating the suspension period from 09.01.2018 onwards as on duty for all consequential benefits. The representation of the applicant was forwarded vide letter dated 03.02.2022 (Annexure A-13). In the meanwhile, the applicant was also became due for promotion from Scientist-C to Scientist-D and respondents circulated list of officers to be considered for submissions of consolidated AWRs vide letter BHANU PARTAP 2026.02.05 12:25:31+05'30' 13 dated 07.04.2022. However, the applicant's name was omitted from the said list. The charges in the CBI case were framed on 21.12.2020.
33. Respondents No.1 and 2 submits that the promotion of applicant to Scientist - C was under consideration and criminal case was registered by CBI on 10.10.2017 under Section 120-B of IPC and Sections 7, 12 and 13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The applicant was arrested on 11.10.2017 and was placed under deemed suspension with effect from 10.10.2017. Review Committee was constituted to periodically review the suspension of the applicant and the subsistence allowance payable to him. The Committee met on 26.08.2019 and 27.08.2019 and ultimately after examining the relevant records, the suspension of the applicant was reviewed on 19.11.2019.
34. It is argued that at the time when the Board of Assessment considered in-situ promotion to Scientist - C on 06.11.2018, the applicant was under deemed suspension and was facing criminal proceedings and the applicant's vigilance status was not clear on the relevant date and the name of the applicant was not included in the Select List.
35. The specific contention of the respondent No.3 is that the proposal for constituting a Board of Assessment to consider in-situ promotion under FCS from Scientist 'B' to Scientist 'C' for the eligibility years 2009 to 2013 was received by the UPSC on 02.05.2018 and name of applicant was not included in the eligibility list forwarded by the Department and the meeting of the Board of Assessment was held on 05.11.2018 under the aegis of BHANU PARTAP 2026.02.05 12:25:31+05'30' 14 UPSC and the name of applicant was kept in a sealed cover strictly in accordance with the DoP&T instructions contained in OMs dated 14.09.1992 and 02.11.2012. The Department had informed UPSC that prosecution proceedings initiated by the CBI were pending against the applicant and vigilance clearance has been withheld. Consequently the sealed cover procedure was mandatory and not discretionary.
36. It has been specifically submitted by the respondent No.3 that the the revocation of suspension does not automatically entitle the applicant to opening of the sealed cover, particularly when criminal prosecution is still pending. The BoA meeting was held on 07.07.2022 considered only those officers whose names were duly sponsored by the Administrative Ministry, and recommendations were communicated to the Ministry on the same date. Since the applicant has not yet been promoted to Scientist 'C', his case could not have been considered for promotion to Scientist 'D' by the Commission. The inclusion or exclusion of names in the proposal is entirely within the domain of the Administrative Ministry, and UPSC has no authority to suo motu include any officer. The issuance of promotion orders, opening of sealed cover, grant of notional or consequential benefits, and decisions following exoneration fall exclusively within the administrative domain of the Ministry of Jal Shakti.
37. The main ground on of the applicant is that mere registration of an FIR on 10.10.2017 could not have operated as a bar to his promotion, particularly when the promotion under FCS had become due much prior thereto, i.e. w.e.f. 01.01.2014 and the charges have been framed on 21.12.2020 and as on 01.01.2014, no BHANU PARTAP 2026.02.05 12:25:31+05'30' 15 criminal case was pending, since the FIR was registered on 10.10.2017.
38. We have perused the material available on record and gone through the submissions of both the sides.
39. As per Annexure A-2 letter dated 17.10.2018, the Board of Assessment Proposal for in-situ promotion to the grade of Scientist 'C' under FCS, in view of the order passed by CAT PB, New Delhi decided on 26.04.2014 titled as Anmol Sharma vs. Union of India & Ors. the applicant was called for personal talk before the Board of Assessment and as per Annexure A-3 dated 12.11.2020, suspension order has been reviewed by the Reviewing Committee and decided to revoke suspension of the applicant with his place of posting at CGWB, NHR, Dharamshala by the competent authority and will be effective from the date of joining at the new place.
40. We have perused Annexure A-15 OM dated 14.09.1992 wherein it is mentioned that at the time of consideration of the cases of Government servant for promotion, details of Government servent in the consideration zone for promotion falling under the following category should be specifically brought to the notice of the Departmental Promotion Committee, which reads as under:
"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
iii) Government servants in respect of whom prosecution for criminal charge is pending."
41. Admittedly the applicant was eligible for promotion to Scientist 'D' w.e.f. 01.01.2013. As per the reply from the respondents it is clear that a proposal for constituting a Board of Assessment to consider BHANU PARTAP 2026.02.05 12:25:31+05'30' 16 in-situ promotion under FCS from Scientist 'B' to Scientist 'C' for the eligibility years 2009 to 2013 was received by the UPSC on 02.05.2018 and a meeting of the Board of Assessment was held on 05.11.2018 and as per the reply filed by the respondents, the Department informed the Commission that an FIR dated 10.10.2017 had been registered by the CBI, Chandigarh and the applicant had been arrested on 11.10.2017, placed under judicial custody, and was under suspension w.e.f. 10.10.2017. The suspension of the applicant has been revoked vide order dated 17.12.2021, admittedly, after the meeting of Board of Assessment, i.e., on 05.11.2018. On the said date, the applicant was under
suspension, which was duly brought to the notice by the Department. In view of such a position, as per Annexure A-16 dated 06.11.2007, the case of the applicant has validly kept in a sealed cover which is clarified as per para 4 of Annexure A-16, which reads as under:
"4. It is further clarified that in cases wherein the officer has been completely exonerated in the disciplinary proceedings or acquitted in the criminal proceedings, as the case may be, his due date of promotion will be determined with reference to the findings of the Screening Committee kept in sealed cover/covers and with reference to the date of promotion of his next junior even if it requires to revert the junior-most officiating person. He may be promoted notionally with reference to the date of promotion of his such junior. However, whether the officer concerned will be entitled to any arrears of pay for the period of notional promotion preceding the date of actual promotion and if so, to what extent, will be decided by taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the disciplinary proceedings/criminal prosecution. Where arrears of salary or part of it are denied, reasons will be recorded for doing sc. It is not possible to anticipate and enumerate exhaustively all the circumstances under which such denial of arrears of salary or part of it may become necessary. However, there may be cases where the proceedings, whether disciplinary or criminal, are., for example, delayed at the instance of the employee or the clearance in the disciplinary proceedings or acquittal in the criminal proceedings is with benefit of doubt or on account of non-availability of evidence due to the acts attributable to the BHANU PARTAP 2026.02.05 12:25:31+05'30' 17 employee etc. These are only some of the circumstances where such denial can be justified."
42. The respondents have specifically submitted that criminal proceeding is still pending. So, as per para 4 of Annexure A-16 (supra) the applicant has not been completely exonerated. He was suspended with effect from 10.10.2017 and arrested on 11.10.2017. The applicant was considered for promotion to Scientist 'C' but the same was kept in sealed cover which is valid as per Annexures A-15 and A-16.
43. The contention of the applicant that now the applicant is eligible for promotion to Scientist 'D', is specifically rejected by the respondents submitting that the applicant has not been promoted as Scientist C under FCS Scheme, hence, there is no question for consideration for promotion as Scientist 'D'.
44. In view of the above submissions, the O.A is dismissed as devoid of merit. No order as to costs.
(ANJALI BHAWRA) (RAMESH SINGH THAKUR)
Member (A) Member (J)
bp
BHANU PARTAP 2026.02.05 12:25:31+05'30'