A government servant selected for a new post cannot be denied vigilance clearance or prohibited from joining based solely on preliminary vigilance inquiries, provided no charge sheet for a penalty has been issued or suspension ordered; disciplinary proceedings remain valid and enforceable even after the employee joins the new department.

O R D E R (ORAL)

Hon’ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)

1. In the present O.A. filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following relief(s):-

" 8.1 To quash and set aside the impugned order dated 01.10.2025 issued by the Deputy Director (Admn.), Office of Chief Adviser Cost, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure (Annexure A-1).

8.2 To quash and set aside the order dated 29.09.2025 to the extent it imposes illegal and unwarranted conditions (para 2, 3 & 4 of order dated 29.09.2025 only) (Annexure A-2).

8.3 To further direct the respondents to accept the joining of the applicant as Assistant Director (Cost) / Probationer in Indian Cost Accounts Service pursuant to appointment letter dated 19.06.2025 and relieving order dated 29.09.2025 with all consequential benefits, including seniority & promotion and pay & allowances.

Or/and

Any other relief which this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the applicant."

2. The claim of the applicant has been contested by the respondents by filing the counter reply and in response thereto, the applicant has filed rejoinder.

3. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and with their assistance we have perused the pleadings available on record.

4. The undisputed facts of the case are the applicant joined the services of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as Assistant Accounts Officer (AAO) on 29.06.2020 (Afternoon). While working as such, in response to an advertisement No. 04/2024 issued by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) the applicant applied for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Director (Cost) under the respondents in the Indian Cost Accounts Service (ICoAS) of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The applicant participated in the relevant selection process. The UPSC vide its recommendation dated 16.04.2025 recommended the name of 36 persons including that of the applicant whose name appears at serial number 17 of the list under the OBC category for appointment to the said post. As the applicant was desirous of joining the post for which he was recommended by the UPSC, the applicant submitted a letter dated 29.05.2025 to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 seeking acceptance of his technical resignation with lien under respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to enable him to join the post under respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 vide their communication dated 29.09.2025 (Annexure A2) relieved the applicant from the post of AAO to enable him to join the post of Assistant Director (Cost) in the ICoAS, however, with remarks as contained in para 2 thereof which reads as under:-

“ 2. The following has been mentioned in the Vigilance Clearance Report dated 23.06.2025:

“ His name has appeared in the investigation of a vigilance case under file No. F.27(Misc.)GC No. 01/2025/Vig./AVO 4/CL and show cause/call version will be issued to him shortly as reported by AVO-4 dated 23.06.2025.”

5. The applicant submitted his joining report before respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who in turn issued the impugned communication dated 01.10.2025 (Annexure A1) refusing the applicant to allow him to join the post of Assistant Director (Cost) on the ground that the vigilance status of the applicant was not clear and till the time a clear vigilance report is provided by respondent nos. 3 and 4 his joining cannot be accepted. Thus, the present O.A.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that once the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have issued a no objectio