Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Mukesh Sisodia vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 3 February, 2026
1- O.A. No. 907/2020
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
Original Application No.060/907/2020
Pronounced on: 03.02.2026
Reserved on: 12.01.2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, MEMBER (A)
Mukesh Sisodia son of Sh. Nirmal Singh aged about 45 years, resident
of H. No. 952, Village Farakpur, Tehsil and District Yamunanagar
working on the post of Sub Divisional Engineer (T), Yamunanagar which
is Group B Post.
... Applicant
By Advocate: Mr. Parveen Chauhan
Versus
1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. through its Chairman and Managing
Director, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi. (PIN-110001)
2. The Chief General Manager Telecom, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd..
Haryana Telecom Circle, The Mall, Ambala Cantonment, Ambala
(Haryana). (PIN-133001)
3. The General Manager, Human Resources 0/0 CGMT, Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Ltd., The Mall, Ambala Cantonment, Ambala (Haryana). (PIN-
133001)
4. The Principal General Manager Telecom, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,
Ambala, SSA, Yamunanagar (Haryana). (PIN-135001)
Digitally signed
by MAMTA 5. Vigilance Cell, Haryana Telecom Circle, The Mall, Ambala
WADHWA
Cantonment, Ambala (Haryana). (PIN-133001)
... .Respondents
By Advocate: Mr. K.K. Thakur
2- O.A. No. 907/2020
ORDER
Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA MEMBER (J):-
1. The present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:-
(i) To quash the impugned rejection order dated 06.10.2020 (A-
18) whereby the claim of the applicant wrongly and arbitrarily rejected while relying upon O.M. dated 02.11.2012 and further for issuance of appropriate directions to the respondents for setting aside the action of the respondent-Nigam by which the Vigilance Clearance for considering his case for promotion on the post of Regular SDE(T) has been withheld vide order dated 07.08.2018 on the pretext of pendency of the criminal case before the Hon'ble Court when charge-sheet (Challan) was not presented by the police as same against the well-settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. K.V. Janakiraman AIR 1991 SC 2010: and
(ii) For issuance of appropriate directions to the respondents to convene a Review Screening Committee meeting to consider the case of the applicant for his promotion from the post of Junior Telecom Officer to the post of Regular SDE (T) upon becoming entitle for said post on merits or since when his juniors were promoted in accordance with the applicable rules. The Review Screening Committee may kindly be directed to consider the case of the applicant in view of fact that when the applicant was entitled to be considered for promotion from 24.07.2018 to 24.08.2018, being neither the applicant was under suspension nor any 3- O.A. No. 907/2020 charge sheet in criminal case was filed against him and further the Review Screening Committee must take note of the fact that vide order dated 09.09.2019 passed in CRM-M 15203 of 2018 the charge sheet filed against the applicant is deemed to be not in existence as fresh investigation is marked to the Inspector General of Police, Ambala Range, Ambala.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant joined the respondent-BSNL, Telecom Circle, Haryana as a Junior Telecom Officer on 01.12.2001 and his services were regularised on 01.03.2002. Throughout his service career there was no complaint regarding his integrity or efficiency. While he was on the verge of promotion to the post of Sub Divisional Engineer (Telecom), FIR No.133 dated 22.03.2018 under Sections 186, 332, 353 and 506 IPC was registered against him at Police Station Farakpur, District Yamunanagar (Annexure A-1). He was arrested on 23.03.2018 and released on regular bail vide order dated 25.03.2018 passed by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yamunanagar (Annexure A-2). Consequent upon his arrest he was placed under suspension on 23.03.2018 and was reinstated on 24.07.2018.
3. An enquiry was conducted by DSP Anil Kumar, HPS, Yamunanagar and vide enquiry report dated 11.04.2018 the applicant was found innocent (Annexure A-3). On the basis of this report the Investigating Agency moved an application for discharge and the Ld. JMIC, Yamunanagar passed Zimini Orders dated 30.04.2018 and 14.06.2018 (Annexure A-4 and A-5). Thereafter, on the applicant's complaint regarding illegal demand of bribe by ASI Balinder Singh, FIR 4- O.A. No. 907/2020 No.02 dated 21.05.2018 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered at Police Station State Vigilance Bureau, Panchkula and the said ASI was caught red-handed (Annexure A-6).
4. Subsequently, a fresh enquiry was marked to DSP Desh Raj, HPS, Yamunanagar who submitted a report dated 19.07.2018 holding the applicant guilty, without associating him in the enquiry and without pointing out any infirmity in the earlier report (Annexure A-7). The applicant became entitled for promotion to the post of Regular SDE (T) on 24.07.2018, the date of his reinstatement, as no charge-sheet under Section 173 Cr.P.C. had been filed till that date. The police filed the final report/challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. on 24.08.2018 and the Ld. Trial Court framed charges on 26.10.2018 (Annexure A-11).
5. The applicant submitted representations dated 30.07.2018 and 09.08.2018 seeking promotion (Annexure A-9). In response, the respondents issued communication dated 07.08.2018 along with internal note dated 04.08.2018 withholding vigilance clearance on the ground that a criminal case was pending (Annexure A-10). The applicant challenged the criminal proceedings before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CRM-M-50173-2018. Vide order dated 15.11.2018 further proceedings were stayed (Annexure A-12) and vide final order dated 09.09.2019 the Hon'ble High Court directed constitution of an SIT for reinvestigation and nullified the earlier challan (Annexure A-13).
6. Despite the above, the applicant's representations dated 13.09.2019, 03.10.2019 and 08.02.2020 were not decided (Annexure A- 14, A-15, A-16). He approached this Tribunal in O.A. No.60/504/2020, 5- O.A. No. 907/2020 which was disposed of vide order dated 07.08.2020 directing the respondents to decide his representation by a reasoned order (Annexure A-17). In compliance, respondent No.3 passed an order dated 06.10.2020 rejecting his claim and continuing to withhold vigilance clearance (Annexure A-18).
7. The applicant contended that as per the Office Memorandum of DoPT dated 21.06.2013 (Annexure A-19), vigilance clearance can be withheld only when a charge-sheet has been filed in a Court and the criminal case is pending. On the crucial date when his promotion to the post of Regular SDE (T) became due, i.e. after his reinstatement on 24.07.2018, he was neither under suspension nor facing any departmental charge-sheet and no criminal prosecution was pending in the eye of law, as the police filed the challan only on 24.08.2018 and cognizance was taken for the first time on 26.10.2018. It was further urged that the impugned communication dated 07.08.2018 with the internal note dated 04.08.2018 (Annexure A-10) is based on incorrect and misleading facts inasmuch as, on that date, the matter was not under trial and no charge-sheet had been filed. Reliance was placed on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.V. Janakiraman, AIR 1991 SC 2010, as also on the decisions of this Tribunal in R.P. Singh v. Government of NCT of Delhi, OA No.1604/2009 decided on 23.12.2009 and Kishore Kumar Srivastava v. Union of India, OA No.060/00068/2015 decided on 18.08.2015, to submit that mere registration of an FIR or pendency of investigation, without framing of charge or taking of cognizance by the court, cannot be a ground to deny promotion or to adopt sealed cover procedure.
6- O.A. No. 907/2020
8. It was further submitted that the action of the respondents in denying promotion and withholding vigilance clearance, while juniors have been promoted, is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order dated 06.10.2020 (Annexure A-18) is stated to be self-contradictory and passed without due application of mind to the relevant dates, namely reinstatement on 24.07.2018, filing of challan on 24.08.2018 and framing of charge on 26.10.2018. It was emphasized that stagnating the applicant on a lower post without any valid pending prosecution or departmental proceedings is punitive and stigmatic in nature and contrary to settled principles of service jurisprudence. On these premises, it was asserted that the applicant is entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Regular SDE (T) from the due date with all consequential benefits including seniority and arrears.
9. The respondents, in their written statement, controverted the averments made by the applicant and pleaded that the vigilance clearance and promotion of the applicant were rightly withheld in view of the serious criminal case registered against him vide FIR No.133 dated 22.03.2018. It was stated that the applicant was arrested, placed under suspension and faced allegations involving offences under Sections 186, 332, 353 and 506 IPC, which directly reflected on his conduct and integrity. According to the respondents, once a criminal case involving moral turpitude and obstruction of public servants was registered, the department was justified in exercising caution and in not granting vigilance clearance. It was further asserted that the matter was not a simple preliminary enquiry but had culminated in filing of challan on 24.08.2018 and framing of charges on 26.10.2018, and therefore the 7- O.A. No. 907/2020 applicant could not claim promotion as a matter of right merely on technical pleas about dates.
10. It was further pleaded that the Office Memoranda and instructions relied upon by the applicant do not confer any automatic right to promotion and that vigilance clearance is not a mere formality but a substantive requirement to assess suitability. The respondents maintained that the applicant's case could not be treated at par with other officials whose records were clear, and therefore there was no discrimination. It was also stated that the impugned order dated 06.10.2020 was passed after considering all relevant facts and legal provisions, and that the department was bound to safeguard its image and administrative discipline. According to the respondents, the pendency of criminal proceedings, the nature of allegations and the subsequent framing of charges justified keeping the applicant's promotion in abeyance, and as such the Original Application was liable to be dismissed as being devoid of merit.
11. The respondents, in their additional reply affidavit, submitted that the case of the applicant, Shri Mukesh Kumar Sisodia, is clearly distinct and distinguishable from the case of Kishore Kumar Srivastava v. Union of India, O.A. No.060/68/2015 decided on 18.08.2015. It was stated that in the case of Kishore Kumar Srivastava, this Tribunal held that since no cognizance had been taken by the competent court under Section 190 Cr.P.C. on the date of the DPC, the sealed cover procedure could not be applied. However, in the present case, vigilance clearance of the applicant was sought for promotion from JTO to SDE (T) under LDCE (33%) quota vide letter 8- O.A. No. 907/2020 dated 26.05.2018, and the same was withheld in accordance with BSNL letter dated 12.05.2016, which mandates following the DoPT O.M. dated 02.11.2012 for grant of vigilance clearance for promotion, time-bound upgradation and looking-after arrangements. It was further pointed out that the applicant was under deemed suspension w.e.f. 23.03.2018 vide Memo dated 05.04.2018 of DGM (CFA), Yamunanagar, and his suspension was revoked only on 24.07.2018 vide Memo dated 24.07.2018. Therefore, as on 26.05.2018, when vigilance clearance was sought, the applicant was admittedly under suspension and in terms of para (i) of the O.M. dated 02.11.2012, vigilance clearance for promotion may be denied if the Government servant is under suspension. In contrast, in the case of Kishore Kumar Srivastava, the suspension itself had been set aside.
12. It was further submitted that in the applicant's case an application for non-discharge of the accused (applicant) was filed and a charge-sheet dated 12.07.2018 was ultimately filed in Court on 24.08.2018. As per para 8 of the DoPT O.M. dated 02.11.2012, judicial proceedings in a criminal case are deemed to be instituted on the date on which the police report, of which the Magistrate takes cognizance, is made. Thus, judicial proceedings stood instituted against the applicant on 24.08.2018. It was pleaded that unlike the Kishore Kumar Srivastava case, where none of the three DoPT conditions applied, in the present case condition (i) of the DoPT O.M. dated 02.11.2012 was satisfied at the time vigilance clearance was sought and subsequently condition (iii) also came into operation. It was further stated that BSNL Corporate Office, New Delhi, vide Promotion Order No.2-16/2013-Pers.II dated 25.05.2018, promoted eligible JTOs to the grade of SDE (T) under 33% 9- O.A. No. 907/2020 Competitive Quota, subject to the condition that no disciplinary/vigilance case is pending and vigilance clearance is available. In compliance thereof, vigilance clearance in respect of all JTOs including the applicant was sought vide letter dated 26.05.2018, and it was communicated that the applicant was under suspension and hence vigilance clearance may be withheld. Since vigilance clearance was withheld, the promotion order issued by BSNL Corporate Office could not be implemented in his case. On these premises, the respondents prayed that the Original Application be dismissed as being devoid of merit.
13. We have gone through the pleadings, perused the material available on file and considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties.
14. The issue for consideration is as to whether the withholding of vigilance clearance for considering the case of applicant for promotion to the post of regular SDE (T) on the pretext of pendency of criminal proceedings is in accordance with the settled proposition of law.
15. The undisputed facts are that the applicant joined the respondent department as JTO on 01.12.2001 in the Haryana Telecom Circle. An FIR No. 133 under sections 186, 332, 353 and 506 IPC was registered against him on 22.03.2018 at Police Station Farakpur, District Yamuna Nagar. He was arrested on 23.03.2018 and released on bail vide order dated 25.03.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar. Consequent upon his arrest, the applicant was placed under suspension on 23.03.2018 and was reinstated on 24.07.2018. 10- O.A. No. 907/2020
16. During the course of investigation, the police did not find any involvement of the applicant in the offence and, accordingly, filed an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar on 30.04.2018 seeking his discharge. However, the Investigating Officer demanded a bribe of ₹20,000/- from the applicant. On the complaint made by the applicant, the Vigilance Bureau, Yamuna Nagar, laid a trap and arrested ASI Balinder Singh, while accepting a bribe of ₹10,000/- from the applicant. As a repercussion of the said action, the Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar marked a fresh enquiry to the DSP, Yamuna Nagar, who submitted his enquiry report dated 19.07.2018, which culminated in the filing of a charge-sheet against the applicant on 24.08.2018. The applicant has also placed on record a copy of orders dated 29.09.2020 and 05.10.2021 passed by learned ASJ Yamunanagar at Jagadhri, whereby the said Balinder Singh has been convicted for 04 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence of taking bribe from the applicant for filing cancellation report against him.
17. In the meantime, the applicant became due for promotion to the post of regular SDE (T) on 24.07.2018. The Competent Authority issued a promotion order in his favour on 25.05.2018, subject to vigilance clearance. Accordingly, vigilance clearance was sought on 26.05.2018. However, the Vigilance Cell, BSNL, vide impugned letter dated 04.08.2018 (Annexure A-10), withheld the vigilance clearance on the ground that the matter was under trial before the Court, observing that the clearance would be granted only upon receipt of an order of acquittal.
11- O.A. No. 907/2020
18. After revocation of his suspension on 24.07.2018 and in the absence of filing of any charge-sheet at that stage, the applicant submitted a representation seeking consideration of his name for promotion, but received no response. He thereafter approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 504/2020. Vide order dated 07.08.2020, this Tribunal directed the respondents to decide the representation. The respondents, vide Annexure A-18 dated 06.10.2020, rejected the same. In the meantime, the learned Trial Court framed charges against the applicant on 26.10.2018.
19. Aggrieved by the subsequent actions of the police authorities, the applicant approached the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court by filing CRM-M-50173-2018. The Hon'ble High Court, while disposing of the petition vide order dated 09.09.2019, directed constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) under the supervision of an officer senior to the Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar, to further investigate the matter within a period of two months.
20. The applicant has pleaded that the SIT, so constituted has neither concluded the investigation nor presented any challan before the learned Trial Court. Therefore, according to him, he is entitled to promotion from 09.09.2019. The respondents have relied upon OM dated 02.11.2012 issued by the DoP&T to justify withholding of vigilance clearance. The legal position regarding grant of vigilance clearance for promotion is well settled. Vigilance clearance can be denied only in the following three circumstances:
i) Government servants under suspension;12- O.A. No. 907/2020
ii) Government servants in respect of whom a charge-sheet has been issued and disciplinary proceedings are pending;
iii) Government servants in respect of whom prosecution for a criminal charge is pending.
21. Now we will examine as to whether the case of the applicant falls under any of the above categories. From the material on record, it is evident that when the Competent Authority considered the applicant for promotion on 25.05.2018, he was under suspension w.e.f. 23.03.2018 and reinstated only on 24.07.2018. Therefore, issuance of promotion order subject to vigilance clearance was justified at that stage. However, at the time of consideration of vigilance clearance of applicant on 04.08.2018, none of the aforesaid three conditions existed on that day. The applicant had already been reinstated on 24.07.2018 and the charge-sheet was filed by the police only on 24.08.2018. It is an undisputed fact that no disciplinary proceeding was ever initiated by the respondents against the applicant. Hence, denial of vigilance clearance vide impugned order dated 04.08.2018 (Annexure A-10) on the ground that the trial was pending before the Court was incorrect and unsustainable. The respondents have misconstrued the provisions in rejecting the vigilance clearance to the applicant. No trial proceedings can be said to be pending as on 04.08.2018. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law.
22. Further, after the Hon'ble High Court direction of constitution of SIT, the first conclusion drawn by the police authorities at Yamuna Nagar through the charge-sheet dated 24.08.2018 shall be subjected to the findings of SIT. We find merit in the contention of the applicant that in the absence of any fresh charge-sheet filed by the SIT till date, it 13- O.A. No. 907/2020 cannot be said that any charge-sheet is pending against him before the Trial Court.
23. The respondents, while rejecting the representation of the applicant vide impugned order dated 06.10.2020, again misconstrued para 8 of the DoP&T OM dated 02.11.2012, which is based on the procedure laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.V. Jankiraman, AIR 1991 SC 2010. Para 8 of the said OM reads as under:
"8. As regards the stage when prosecution of a criminal charge can be stated to be pending, the said OM dated 14.09.92 does not specify the same and hence the definition of 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:-
(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."
The respondents vide order dated 06.10.2020 reiterated their earlier decision whereas on the basis of stipulation in the said OM the trial proceedings cannot be said to be pending on the date of consideration of clearance as no charge sheet was filed till 07.08.2018 in the matter. The charge sheet was filed only on 24.08.2018.
24. In view of the above discussion, the impugned orders (Annexures A-10 and A-18) are held to be illegal and not in consonance with settled legal principles and are accordingly set aside. The 14- O.A. No. 907/2020 respondents are directed to reconsider the claim of the applicant for review of DPC in the light of subsequent developments i.e. constitution of the SIT and thereafter decision (if any) taken by the SIT. The Original Application stands disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
(RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI) (SURESH KUMAR BATRA) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) Dated: 03.02.2026 'mw'