$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 17.02.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 18.03.2026 + W.P.(C) 569/2019 DILIP VISHWANATH GONDNALE .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Suresh Chandra Saxena, Adv.

versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Jagdish Chandra, CGSC along with Mr. Surjeet Kumar, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

J U D G M E N T

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.

1. Through the present writ petition, the Petitioner has assailed the correctness of order dated 29.10.2018 (hereafter ‘impugned order’), passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 1984/2018. The Petitioner has also sought issuance of directions to the Respondents to promote the Petitioner to the post of Additional Director General of Ordnance Factory & Member of the Board with effect from 01.12.2017 will all consequential benefits.

2. The brief facts of the present case are as follows:

2.1. The Petitioner was an officer of Indian Ordnance Factory Service and he was working as Senior General Manager in the Higher Administrative Grade (HAG). The Petitioner’s case was considered along with that of some of his juniors and seniors for promotion against six vacancies of HAG+ category in the vacancy year 2017-18. The Petitioner was found fit for promotion by the DPC, and subsequently, on 14.06.2017, Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) also approved the name of the Petitioner. Despite the same, the Petitioner was not promoted, due to which, he filed the Original Application bearing no. 1984/2018 seeking promotion with consequential benefits.

2.2. In the proceedings, a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the Respondents indicating that the Petitioner was not promoted as his name figured in the ‘Agreed List’, however, one post was kept vacant for the Petitioner pending further verification.

2.3. By the impugned order, the learned Tribunal allowed the Original Application and directed that the recommendations of DPC and the clearance of ACC shall be implemented unless any of the factors mentioned in the Office Memorandums dated 14.09.1992 and

21.06.2013 exist.

2.4. Pursuant to the same, the Respondents passed a speaking order dated 28.11.2018 rejecting the Petitioner’s appointment on account of him figuring in the ‘Agreed List’ for the years 2017 and 2018 for alleged irregularities in the Management of Public Fund Accounts of Rifle Factory, Ishapore. The rejection order indicates that the preliminary vigilance investigation revealed that cash books at the factory remained unaudited since the years 2010-2011 and the Petitioner had failed to ensure the Cash Drill Procedure from March, 2013 to October, 2015 at the factory. Further, during his surprise checks, the Petitioner had allegedly overlooked non-availability of balance sheets, liability statements and bank reconciliation statement. It was also noted that in the case registered by CBI, responsibility was attributed on the Petitioner for a multitude of factors, including, him not doing regular surprise checks or not doing so properly.

2.5. Aggrieved by the implementation of the DPC being made conditional on the factors prescribed in Office Memorandum dated

21.06.2013, the Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that although the original application filed by the Petitioner was allowed, the Tribunal has erred in allowing the Respondents to deny promotion on the basis of the factors listed in the prescribed Office Memorandum dated 21.06.2013, which does not apply to promotions. He further submitted that the scope of Agreed List remains ambiguous and the Petitioner cannot be denied the benefits of promotion on the basis of the same.

4. He submitted that Office Memorandums dated 07.07.2008 and 02.11.2012 make it clear that Office Memorandum dated 14.12.2007, which pertains to grant of vigilance clearance, does not cover cases of promotion. He submitted that the case of promo