Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 04.12.2025
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Ms.Pratima N. Lakra, CGSC
Mishra, Ms.Mansi and Mr.Chanakya Kene, Advs.
Through: Mr.M. K. Bhardwaj, Ms.Priyanka Bhardwaj and
Mr.Praveen Kaushik, Advs.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. This petition has been filed, challenging the Order dated 01.08.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 761/2020, titled N. Mohan Krishna v. Union of India & Anr., allowing the said O.A. filed by the respondent herein, with the following directions:
outcome of the above, the applicant shall be entitled for restoration of his rank before imposition of penalty upon him and, if he is otherwise found eligible, he shall be considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Commissioner as well as Joint Commissioner, which were withheld on account of pending disciplinary proceedings against him. He shall also be entitled for all other consequential benefits, in accordance with the extant rules. The directions contained herein shall be complied with within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.”
2. The only ground on which the learned Tribunal has allowed the O.A. is the delay in the initiation and the conclusion of the inquiry proceedings by the petitioners, and the resultant prejudice caused to the respondent in the form of him losing out on promotions during the intervening period. We quote from the Impugned Order, as under:
xxx
17. In the background of the facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that since there is inordinate delay in issuance of the charge memorandum as well as imposition of penalty upon the applicant and, in fact, when there was hardly any explanation worth consideration for such delay attributable to the respondents, the same cannot be sustained on any ground as it is in gross contravention to the above settled position of law. Accordingly, the impugned charge memorandum dated 16.02.2015 and the consequential orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority deserve to be quashed. It is also pertinent to mention that the charge was not proved in the inquiry conducted against the applicant and he has already suffered a lot in view of the pending disciplinary proceedings. (Emphasis supplied)
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn our attention to Ground E in the Writ Petition, which gives the timeline of the proceedings. We reproduce the same, as under:
“E. BECAUSE the following details regarding the stages of proceedings were not considered by the Hon’ble CAT in correct prospective – Sr. No. Event Date
1. Period of Stay in Hotel Ashoka, Hyderabad as shown by the Charged officer in TA claim against Hotel receipt found of wrong address 28.03.2011 to 24.04.2011
2. First Memo issued by the Department against which officer denied false TA claim but deposited entire amount claimed with interest. 04.10.2012 The matter was further investigated by the North Zonal Unit of Directorate General of Vigilance. During the investigation, various letters and consequent reminders were issued periodically to different formation of CGST & Customs to obtain information / documents relevant to the aforesaid case. Since, in the aforesaid case, Sh.N. Mohan Krishna was undergoing training as probationer in NACEN, Faridabad and was attached with different field formation of erstwhile Central Excise, Service Tax & Customs for training purpose, therefore to verify the veracity of allegations made in the complaint, reports were called from different field formations i.e. Narcotics Commissioner CBN (Gwalior), Commissioner of Customs (Hyderabad-ll Commissionerate), Commissioner (Visakhapatnam), Commissioner of Customs (Siliguri Commissionerate), Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Amritsar.
3. Voluntary Statement of Shri N Mohan Krishna/Respondent 21.11.13
4. Vigilance Investigation report sent to DGoV 10.03.2014
5. CVC First Stage Advice Date 22.08.2014
6. CM NO. 01/2015 issued 16.02.2015 On denial of charges by the CO, a formal inquiry was held in the matter
7. IO/PO appointed 13.10.2015
8. IO report received: Charges held not proved 09.09.2016 The IO in his report dated 09.09.2014 held the charge as “Not Proved’. The DA duly considered the IR dated 09.09.2014 and after re-examination of the matter in light of the facts of the same, disagreement note detailing the reasons of disagreement was issued.
9. Disagreement note issued 13.11.2017
10. Representation from CO on DN 11.12.2017 After due consideration Representation of the CO was rejected by the DA and the matter was referred to UPSC.
11. File forwarded to UPSC 23.08.2018
12. UPSC Advice dated 27.02.2019
13. Representation of CO on UPSC advice 26.03.2019 After careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record, the representation of the CO on UPSC advice was rejected by the competent authority and UPSC advice was accepted.
14. Final Order No. 08/2020 awarding punishment of Reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale pay by two (02) stages, for a period of two (02) years with further directions that he will not earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and on the expiry of such period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay. 18.02.2020 ”
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the above timeline would show that there was no inordinate delay in the initiation and the conclusion of the inquiry proceedings, and that steps were followed by the petitioners with the required expedition.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent, drawing our attention to the CVC Circular dated 14.12.2020, submits that there was an inordinate delay, not only in the initiation of the inquiry proceedings but also in the conduct thereof. He submits that, in the meantime, the respondent lost out on promotions, which in itself is a prejudice caused to the respondent. He hands over a chart showing the prejudice caused in this regard to the respondent. We reproduce the same, as under: TABLE-02 Time Line of Promotion of the officers who are Batchmates (2010 Batch-IRS) of the Respondent Sr. N. Promotion/Appointment Date 1 Appointment as Assistant Commissioner 30.08.2010 Promotion of the Grade of Deputy Commissioner 17.10.2015 (Ad-hoc) 01.04.2015 (Regular) Promotion to the Grade of Joint 01.01.2020 Promotion to the Grade of Additional 01.01.2023 Expected Promotion as Commissioner as per RR 01.01.2028 TABLE - 03 Time Line of Promotion of the Respondent due to delay in Departmental Proceedings Sr. N. Promotion/Appointment Date 1 Appointment as Assistant Commissioner 30.08.2010
2 Issue of Change Memorandum 16.02.2015 3 Date of Final Order No. 08/2000 18.02.2020 Promotion to the Grade of Deputy Commissioner (after completion of punishment) 25.02.2022
5 Expected Promotion as Joint Commissioner 01.01.2027 (as per RR 2017) Expected Promotion as Additional 01.01.2028 7 Expected Promotion as Commissioner 01.01.2031 TABLE -04 Time Line of Promotion of the Respondent, if Departmental Proceedings were completed based on CVC Guidelines and as per Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court Sr. N. Event (Promotion/Appointment, Date of Dept. Proceeding) Date (If Departmental proceedings were completed within 09 months) Date (If Departmental proceedings were completed within 18 months) Appointment as Assistant 30.08.2010 30.08.2010 2 Date of Charge sheet 16.02.2015 16.02.2015
3 Likely Date of order 16.11.2015 16.08.2016 Likely Date of completion of Penalty imposed on Respondent 16.11.2017 16.08.2018 Likely Date of Promotion as Deputy Commissioner as per RR 01.01.2018 01.01.2019 Likely Date of Promotion of Joint Commissioner as per RR 01.01.2023 01.01.2024 Likely Date of Promotion of Additional Commissioner 01.01.2024 01.01.2025 Likely Date of Promotion as Commissioner as per RR 01.01.2028 01.01.2028
6. He further submits that the learned Tribunal, in its Impugned Order, has also found that there was no evidence to proceed against the respondent. He specifically relies upon the emphasised portion of Paragraph 15, which we have re-produced hereinabove.
7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.
8. The Supreme Court in S. Janaki Iyer v. Union of India & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1179, has held that mere delay in the inquiry proceedings, when it is explained with regard to the time taken for the inquiry to conclude, and where no prejudice in the conduct of the inquiry is shown to have caused, cannot vitiate the inquiry. We quote from the judgment, as under:
9. In the present case, in our view, the petitioners, from the above timeline, have been able to show the reasons for the delay in the conclusion of the inquiry proceedings.
10. Though we do appreciate that the respondent has suffered prejudice in the form of losing out on promotions during the interregnum period, the same cannot be sufficient to set aside the entire inquiry proceedings.
11. On the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent that the learned Tribunal also found that there was no evidence against the respondent, we find that apart from the above-stated words which have been emphasised by us in Paragraph 2 of our present Judgment, the learned Tribunal has not considered or given any reasons for the same.
12. At this stage, we find that as the learned Tribunal has not considered the case of the respondent on merits, apart from looking into the question of delay, it would be more appropriate to remand the matter back to the learned Tribunal for a fresh consideration of the entire gamut.
13. We, accordingly, set aside the Impugned Order passed by the learned Tribunal, and restore the O.A. back to its original number. The parties shall appear before the learned Tribunal on 22.12.2025.
14. We request the learned Tribunal to expedite the hearing of the O.A. and decide the same afresh, preferably within a period of three months of its first listing.
15. We would clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claims of the parties.
16. The petition, along with the pending application, is disposed of in the above terms.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J MADHU JAIN, J DECEMBER 4, 2025/sg/SJ