Union of India v. Sanjeet Sehrawat

1. This petition has been filed, challenging the Order dated 14.01.2025 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 474/2019, titled Sanjeet Sehrawat v. Union of India & Ors., allowing the said OA filed by the respondent herein with the following directions:

CBI within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. There will be notional benefits like fixation of pay and allowances and seniority. However, there will be no payment of arrears of pay on the principle of 'No work no pay'. There will be no order as to costs.”

2. To give the brief background of facts in which the present petition arises, the respondent pursuant to a Notification/Advertisement inviting application for Common Graduate Level Exam-2014 issued by the petitioners in 2014, had applied for the same. He was selected to the post of Sub-Inspector on completion of the selection process. On 20.11.2015, he was called to submit the attestation form duly filled, in which the respondent disclosed that an FIR No.127/2011 had been registered inter alia against him at Police Station Ali Pur, Delhi under Sections 323/341/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, ‘IPC’) and was pending trial. Thereafter, the petitioners issued an Offer Letter dated 25.02.2016 to the respondent. A Joining Letter dated 29.02.2016 was also sent to the respondent regarding his appointment as Sub- Inspector, CBI. The respondent then reported for Institutional Training at the CBI Academy, Hapur Road, Kamla Nehru Nagar, Ghaziabad (UP) on 13.03.2016. On the same day, he was informed through a Memorandum that his appointment has been withdrawn because of the pendency of the abovementioned criminal case against him. The respondent represented against the same, however, on 02.06.2016 his dossier alongwith attestation form was returned back.

3. It is pertinent to point out herein itself that the respondent was working as Inspector (Excise) and his resignation from the said post was accepted by his previous employer on 27.01.2016 and he was relieved from the said office on 29.01.2016.

4. The respondent then approached the learned Tribunal by way of the above OA.

5. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the OA filed by the respondent was beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. He submits that this vital fact has been ignored by the learned Tribunal. However, today, the learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submits that the delay in filing the OA has been condoned by the learned Tribunal vide an Order dated 07.02.2020 passed in MA No.1396/2019 in the above OA. The said Order was not challenged by the petitioners at any stage and has attained finality. Therefore, we find no merit in the above objection of the petitioner.

6. Coming to the merits of the present petition, we find that the respondent had duly disclosed the pendency of the above criminal case in the attestation form. It is the case of the respondent that the above FIR has been registered because of family disputes. In the FIR, the petitioner has been charged with offences under Sections 323/341/34 of the IPC and therefore do not include any offense involving moral turpitude.

7. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent has, in fact, till date, not been acquitted in the above FIR, in our opinion the same cannot be a sufficient reason to declare the respondent unfit for appointment.

8. The respondent was already working as Inspector (Excise), and had tendered his resignation from the said post only in order to join the petitioners/CBI. Merely because the respondent is still facing a trial does not make him guilty of the offences of which he is being charged. In case the respondent is convicted in the aforementioned FIR, the petitioners always have appropriate remedies open to them in accordance with law.

9. We, in the above facts and circumstances, do not find any reason to interfere with the Order passed by the learned Tribunal. The petition is accordingly dismissed. The pending application is also disposed of as being infructuous.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J RENU BHATNAGAR, J JULY 22, 2025/Arya/ik