CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH LUCKNOW ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 332/00385 of 2025 Order reserved on: 09.12.2025 Order pronounced on: 19.12.2025 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member- Judicial Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative Rajesh Kumar Singh, aged about 57 years, S/o Late Shri Yogendra Singh, R/o A-1/88, Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. (IAS)

…..Applicant By Advocate: Shri Vishwajit Singh Senior Advocate Assisted by Shri Praveen Kumar VERSUS

1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, North Block, New Delhi.

2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lok Bhawan, Lucknow.

…..Respondent By Advocate: Smt. Prayagmati Gupta Shri S. S. Rajawat

ORDER

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

“1. To quash the impugned memorandum dated 27.04.2023 (contained as Annexure No. A-1 to this OA) all consequential benefits.

2. The Hon‟ble Tribunal may direct the opposite parties to promote the applicant to the apex scale from the date 30^th June, 2024 giving him parity with his batch mates and also direct the opposite parties to give all consequential benefits to which the applicant is entitled from 30^th June, 2024.

3. Any other relief, which this Hon‟ble Tribunal may deem fit, just and proper under the circumstances of the case, may also be passed.

4. Cost of the present case.”

2.1 The facts of the case are that the applicant, an officer belonging to the Indian Administrative Service borne on Uttar Pradesh cadre, was proceeded against departmentally with the issue of memorandum, or charge sheet, dated 27.04.2023 by respondent no. 1 under rule 8 of the All India Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1969, alleging that the applicant, in contravention of the written directions received from Department of Heavy Industry (now Ministry of Heavy Industries), Government of India, filed ‘no objection’ to the closure report filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI, hereafter) before the Special (CBI) Court No. 2, Calcutta on 01.09.2018, i.e., he did not defend the interest of Department of Heavy Industry, Government of India.

Aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.

2.2 The background of the present controversy is that the applicant, while posted as Joint Secretary (JS, hereafter) in the then Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, Department of Heavy Industry (now Ministry of Heavy Industries) was also functioning as Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO, hereafter) from 11.12.2014 to 04.10.2016 and in that capacity, with approval of the competent authority, he had referred a matter to CBI for investigation in the complaints made by one person against the ex-Chairman & Managing Director, Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd. A first information report was lodged by CBI and a case under section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sections 120-B read with 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered in the matter. After investigation, CBI submitted a closure report in the Special (CBI) Court No. 2, Calcutta. The Special (CBI) Court issued notice to the applicant as he was the complainant in the matter which he forwarded to JS & CVO of Department of Heavy Industry for necessary action as the applicant was working under the State Government of Uttar Pradesh as Commissioner, Moradabad at that point of time. The Department of Heavy Industry applied to the Special (CBI) Court for substitution of the applicant with the serving JS & CVO of the Department as the applicant had already demitted office. The Special (CBI) Court, vide order dated 19.07.2018, did not accept the plea for substitution. The Department of Heavy Industry, then, vide letter dated 20.08.2018 requested the applicant to appear before the Special (CBI) Court on 01.09.2018 to present its views. T