Vigilance clearance cannot be denied based on allegations from civil disputes unless a formal charge sheet is issued, as mandated by the Office Memorandum guidelines.

ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J):

In the present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:

“8.1. to allow the present application;

8.2. to quash and set aside the impugned Letter dated 14.05.2024 ofRespondent No. 2 [Annexure: A-1];

8.3. to quash and set aside the impugned Letter dated 12.02.2024 ofRespondent No. 2 [Annexure: A-2];

8.4. to grant all consequential benefits of the above quashing to the Applicant as permissible in law;

8.5. to direct the Respondents not to block/stop the Vigilance Clearance of the Applicant only because of the Criminal Case in question pending before the Court of Additional ChiefJudicial Magistrate-VI, Patna City;

8.6. to direct the Respondent to pay suitable compensation to the Applicant as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case;

8.7. to issue any such and further order/directions this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case; and

8.8. to allow exemplary costs ofthe application”

2. Narrating the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted as under:

2.1. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant, an officer of the Indian Ordnance Factory Service (1990 Batch), who is presently serving as Chief General Manager, India Optel Limited, Dehradun, under the Department of Defence Production, Ministry of Defence.

The applicant has assailed the impugned orders dated 12.02.2024 and 14.05.2024 issued by Respondent No. 2, the Chief Vigilance Officer, whereby his vigilance clearance was denied. The said denial is founded on an order dated 27.04.2023 passed by the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VI, Patna City, taking cognizance in a private property dispute instituted by the applicant’s cousin brother, which is purely civil in nature and unconnected with any of the applicant’s official duties. Notwithstanding that the Hon’ble High Court of Patna stayed the said cognizance order on 26.04.2024, the respondent again rejected the applicant’s subsequent representation on 14.05.2024, thereby maintaining the denial of vigilance clearance.

2.2. Learned counsel contended that the impugned action has adversely affected applicant’s service prospects, including his eligibility to appear in interviews for higher posts. Adding further to the arguments, learned counsel submitted that the respondents were not justified in denying vigilance clearance to the applicant on the basis of a private, non-official civil dispute, particularly when the cognizance order relied upon has been stayed by the Hon’ble High Court of Patna.

2.3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the impugned orders dated 12.02.2024 and 14.05.2024 are bad in law, being violative of the Office Memorandum dated 28.09.2022 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, which governs the procedure and conditions for grant of vigilance clearance. Under the said Office Memorandum, vigilance clearance cannot be denied in cases arising out of private complaints unless a charge sheet has been filed by the investigating agency, and no such charge sheet exists in the present case.

2.4. Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned orders are also contrary to various judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Tribunal, which have consistently held that vigilance clearance cannot be withheld in matters stemming from private disputes or in proceedings that stand stayed.

2.5. Learned counsel contended that the impugned orders have been issued by an incompetent authority, namely the Chief Vigilance Officer, who is junior in rank to the applicant, whose appointing and disciplina