CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH LUCKNOW TA No. 332/00003/2021 Dated, this 16th day of October, 2025 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member- Judicial Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative Shri Ajit Singh, aged about 59 years, S/o Late Sh. Raja Ram, R/o B- 1, 812 CPWD Multi-Storey Flats, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi- 110005, presently posted as Assistant Director Grade-II (EI) M. SME Development Institute, Captain Shahid Gaurjeet Singh Marg, Near Okla Manc, New Delhi – 110020. Group B, Designation as Assistant Director.

…..Applicant By Advocate: Shri Ajit Singh applicant present in person VERSUS

1. Secretary, Ministry of Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises, Govt. of India, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi-110011.

2. The Development Commissioner, Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises, A-Wing 7th Floor Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110011.

3. The Economic Adviser (IES), Govt. of India, M/o Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, (IES) Cadre, Room No. 59, North Block, New Delhi-110001.

…..Respondent By Advocate: Smt. Prayagmati Gupta

ORDER (ORAL)

Per Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative In this case relating to promotion, the applicant has sought following reliefs:

“(i) Direct the respondents to issue vigilance clearance in favour of the applicant forthwith.

(ii) Direct the respondents to open sealed cover for promotion into Grade IV of IES cadre and grant promotions time to time from the date of junior namely P. Sivasubramanian.

(iii) Direct the respondents to grant all the consequential benefits like seniority promotion and pay and allowances to the applicant.

(iv) Pass any other orders as deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(v) Award costs.”

2. The facts of the case are that the applicant, while working as Assistant Director Grade-II in MSME-DI, Kanpur, was issued a charge sheet dated 26.09.2012 under rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 [CCS (CCA) Rules, hereafter] and was dismissed from service vide order dated 20.12.2012 by the disciplinary authority. In appeal, the respondent no. 1, vide order dated 30.04.2013, taking note of the applicant’s submission that he had not received the charge sheet, ordered conduct of the enquiry after handing over the charge sheet to the applicant. The respondents, vide office memorandum (OM, hereafter) dated 17.01.2014 withheld the applicant’s vigilance clearance and issued an order dated 19.05.2014 promoting 19 officers of the rank of Assistant Director Grade-II to Grade-IV of the Indian Economic Service, excluding the applicant.

Aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.

3. The applicant’s contention is that he was issued the charge sheet dated 26.09.2012 on the basis of an anonymous complaint in violation of instructions issued by the Central Vigilance Commissioner and the said charge sheet was issued by an authority not competent to do so rendering the departmental proceedings void ab initio. It is further contended that the applicant challenged the order dated 30.04.2013 as well as the order dated 01.05.2013 appointing the Inquiry Officer in OA No. 768 of 2013 and that the impugned orders were quashed by the Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 31.03.2017 in that OA and, therefore, the action of the respondents in not promoting him vide their order dated 19.05.2014, in which an officer named P Sivasubramaniam who is junior to the applicant has been promoted, is unsustainable. It is further contended that the respondents did not issue any fresh charge sheet, but they continued with the disciplinary proceedings by appointing the Inquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer which was challenged by the applicant in OA No. 720 of 2017 and this Tribunal granted stay vide order dated 04.01.2018. The applicant also refers to a criminal case registered on 15.06.2012 vide Crime Case No. 625 of 2012 under sections 420. 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code in which Hon’ble High Cour