$~20, 21 & 22 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3319/2020 & CM APPL. 11666/2020 ARVIND KADYAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Amit Khemka, Mr. Siddharth Shukla, Ms. Himani Singh, Mr. Ejaz Ahmad, Advocates.

versus BACHAN SINGH & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, CGSC for UOI with Mr. Amit Rana, Mr.

Kushagra Kumar, Advocates.

Mr. T.P. Singh, Senior Central Govt.

Counsel for R-2/NCSC.

+ W.P.(C) 3320/2020 & CM APPL. 11668/2020 RAJIV CHOPRA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Amit Khemka, Mr. Siddharth Shukla, Ms. Himani Singh, Mr. Ejaz Ahmad, Advocates.

versus BACHAN SINGH & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, CGSC for UOI with Mr. Amit Rana, Mr.

Kushagra Kumar, Advocates.

Mr. T.P. Singh, Senior Central Govt.

Counsel for R-2/NCSC.

+ W.P.(C) 4811/2020 & CM APPL. 17378/2020 STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath, Mr. Harshit Singh, Mr. Aant Devi, Advocates.

versus NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULE CASTES & ORS.

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, CGSC for UOI with Mr. Amit Rana, Mr.

Kushagra Kumar, Advocates.

Mr. T.P. Singh, Senior Central Govt.

Counsel for R-2/NCSC.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 09.02.2026

1. All three petitions assail the order dated 09^th March, 2020, passed by the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (“the Commission”). Since the challenge arises out of a common factual matrix and raises overlapping questions of law regarding the scope of powers of the Commission under Article 338 of the Constitution, the petitions are being decided by a common order. For convenience, the Petitioner in W.P.(C) 3319/2020 is referred as “Petitioner No.1”, the Petitioner in W.P.(C) 3320/2020 as “Petitioner No.2”

and the Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4811/2020 as “the Corporation”.

Background:

2. Mr. Bachan Singh [Respondent No. 2 in W.P.(C) 4811/2020 and Respondent No. 1 in the other two petitions] joined the Corporation on 13^th August, 1987, as Junior Engineer (Electrical) and was eventually promoted to the post of Deputy General Manager (Electrical) on 10^th June, 2011. Subsequently, complaints alleging irregularities in award of contracts were received through the Central Vigilance Commission (“CVC”). Acting upon the first-stage advice of the CVC, a charge-sheet dated 11^th June, 2015 was issued initiating major penalty proceedings against Bachan Singh.

3. The Inquiry Officer held one charge ‘proved’, one ‘partially proved’

and one ‘not proved’. The Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings and, after granting an opportunity of representation, imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement on 08^th September, 2017. The appeal and review preferred by Bachan Singh were rejected by the competent authorities and the disciplinary proceedings attained finality under the applicable service rules of the Corporation. From the record, it does not appear that he challenged the disciplinary action before any judicial forum.

4. Parallelly, Bachan Singh had been making representations before the Commission for several years alleging denial of promotion on grounds of caste, seeking accelerated promotions with retrospective effect and alleging victimisation, including treating the disciplinary proceedings as part of continuing discrimination. By the impugned order dated 09^th March, 2020, the Commission recommended grant of retrospective promotions and further recommended initiation of proceedings, including causing registration of FIRs against Mr. Arvind Kadyan and Mr. Rajiv Chopra. The relevant portion of the impugned order reads as under:

“In the aforesaid circumstances, this Commission deems it fit to recommend the case of the petitioner to the Secretary, Department of Commerce, Government of India and accordingly, strongly recommends to the Secretary, Department of Commerce to forthwith ensure cancellation of the CRS penalty of the petitioner and accord him fast track promotion in feeder quota in MM cadre as on 01.07.2000, CMM as on 0