MUDIT SINGHAL vs Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (GNCTD) on 6 November 2026

O R D E R

Hon’ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member(J)

The applicant joined the respondent Corporation, DSIIDC, on 27.10.2014 and was promoted to the post of Divisional Manager (Group-A, Pay Level-11) with effect from 15.05.2020. The post of Chief Manager (Group-A, Pay Level-12) is governed by the Recruitment Rules dated 16.02.2021. Under the said Rules, a Divisional Manager with five years of regular service in Pay Level-11, possessing the prescribed educational qualifications, is eligible for consideration for promotion.

2. The applicant possesses the requisite educational qualifications, including a B.Tech. degree and an MBA, and completed five years of regular service as Divisional Manager in May 2025. There were three sanctioned posts of Chief Manager under the promotion quota, out of which two were filled and one post was vacant. The applicant was the only eligible officer in the zone of consideration.

3. The issue concerning Shed No. 2, Badli Industrial Area, arose during the applicant's tenure as Divisional Manager, IEM- North. The applicant's case is that, upon being informed of unauthorised renovation at the premises, he examined the available records, obtained approval from the competent authority and legal vetting, and took steps for sealing the premises and lodging a police complaint. He also passed a speaking order dated 25.02.2021 rejecting the appeal for restoration of the premises.

4. Subsequently, a Show Cause Notice dated 16.04.2025 was issued to the applicant alleging dereliction of duty and supervisory lapses in relation to the said property. The applicant inspected the relevant file and submitted a detailed reply on 16.05.2025. The said reply has not been decided till date. No charge sheet has been issued against the applicant, nor has he been placed under suspension or subjected to any criminal prosecution in relation to the matter. SOURJYA SOBHANIYA

5. The DPC held on 23.12.2025 considered the applicant's case. The vigilance status placed before it recorded that no case was pending or contemplated against the applicant in the Vigilance Division. It, however, referred to the observation of the Department of Vigilance regarding alleged serious lapses in the matter of Shed No. 2, Badli Industrial Area, which was stated to be under investigation. Based on the same, the DPC recommended that the matter be deferred.

6. The applicant submitted representations dated 02.02.2026 and 27.02.2026 seeking reconsideration of his case.

7. A further vigilance status was obtained by the respondents vide letter dated 30.03.2026. It specifically certified that the applicant was not under suspension, no charge sheet had been issued and no disciplinary proceedings were pending against him, and no criminal prosecution was pending against him. It also recorded that no penalty had been imposed upon him during the preceding ten years.

8. The DPC again considered the applicant's case on 07.04.2026. After considering the vacancy position, zone of consideration, APARs, vigilance status and integrity, the Committee recorded as follows: “After going through the relevant records viz. vacancy position, zone of consideration, APARs, vigilance status, integrity etc., the Committee deferred the matter in view of pendency of a DoV reference dated 09.01.2025. The Committee further observed that though the matter does not attracts the three conditions laid down in DoPT OM dated 02.11.2012 in which vigilance clearance can be denied, however the committee directed that the said DoV reference be disposed off expeditiously and thereafter matter may be placed before DPC.” Thereafter, on 16.04.2026, the respondents assigned the applicant the current duty charge of the post of Chief Manager due to administrative reasons.

9. The applicant has, therefore, approached this Tribunal seeking the following relief: SOURJYA SOBHANIYA

“a) Direct the Respondents to promote the Applicant to the post of Chief Manager w.e.f. 01.01.2026 with all consequential service and financial benefits, including arrears of pay, fixation of seniority, and all other attendant benefits.

b) Declare that the deferment of the Applicant's promotion in the DPCs held on 23.12.2025 and 07.04.2026 is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the DoPT OM dated 02.11.2012 and the applicable Recruitment Rules;

c) Declare that the vigilance observation dated 30.10.2025 concerning Shed No. 2, Badli Industrial Estate does not attract any of the three conditions prescribed under the DoPT OM dated 02.11.2012, and cannot lawfully constitute a ground for withholding or deferring the Applicant's promotion;

d) Direct the Respondents to count the period during which the Applicant has been discharging the duties of Chief Manager on Current Duty Charge pursuant to Office Order dated 16.04.2026 towards his regular service in the said post, for all consequential purposes;

e) Award costs of the proceedings to the Applicant;

f) Pass any other order or direction as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”

10. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant fulfils all the eligibility conditions prescribed under the Recruitment Rules for promotion to the post of Chief Manager. He possesses the requisite educational qualifications, has completed the prescribed five years of regular service as Divisional Manager and is the only eligible officer in the zone of consideration against an available vacancy.

11. It was submitted that the applicant's APAR gradings are above the prescribed benchmark and his integrity has been certified as “Beyond Doubt”. There is, therefore, no deficiency in his service record which could justify withholding his promotion.

12. Learned counsel further submitted that the deferment of the applicant's promotion is solely on account of the vigilance observation concerning Shed No. 2, Badli Industrial Area. The applicant was issued only a show cause notice, to which he submitted a detailed reply on 16.05.2025. The said reply remains undecided. No charge sheet has been issued, no disciplinary proceedings are pending and no criminal SOURJYA SOBHANIYA

prosecution is pending against him. He is also not under suspension.

13. He drew our attention to the DoPT O.M. dated 02.11.2012, which reads as under: “8. Procedure to be followed by the DPC in respect of Government servants under cloud At the time of consideration of the cases of Government servants for promotion, details of Government servants in the consideration zone for promotion falling under the following categories should be specifically brought to the notice of the Departmental Promotion Committee: -

(i) Government servants under suspension;

(ii) Government servants in respect of whom a charge sheet has been issued and the disciplinary proceedings are pending; and (iii ) Government servants in respect of whom prosecution for a criminal charge is pending. For the purpose of pendency of prosecution for a criminal charge, the definition of pendency of judicial proceedings in criminal cases given in Rule 9 (6)(b)(i) of CCS (Pension)_Rules, 1972 [Now Explanation l (b) ((i) under Rule 8 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 202 1] is adopted. The Rule 9

(6) (b)(i) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 [Now Explanation J (b) (i) under Rule 8 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 202 1 ] provides as under:- "(b) judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted - (i) in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which the complaint or report of a Police Office,: of which the Magistrate takes cognizance, is made " Learned counsel submitted that the cases of Government servants falling in the three specified categories, namely, those under suspension, those against whom a charge sheet has been issued and disciplinary proceedings are pending, and those against whom prosecution for a criminal charge is pending, are required to be specifically brought to the notice of the DPC. The applicant does not fall in any of these categories.

14. It was particularly emphasised that even the DPC held on 07.04.2026 expressly acknowledged that the applicant's case did not attract any of the three conditions laid down in the aforesaid O.M. Despite this, the DPC deferred his case merely because a DoV reference dated 09.01.2025 was pending. Such deferment, according to learned counsel, is contrary to the very instructions which the respondents were required to follow.

15. Learned counsel also submitted that the allegations concerning Shed No. 2 relate to actions taken by the applicant in the discharge of his official duties and that he had, in fact, taken SOURJYA SOBHANIYA

steps to protect the property of the Corporation. It was further submitted that the respondents have failed to take a decision on the applicant's reply to the show cause notice and cannot indefinitely withhold his promotion on the basis of an investigation which has not culminated in any formal disciplinary proceedings.

16. It was also pointed out that the respondents themselves assigned the current duty charge of Chief Manager to the applicant on 16.04.2026. Though the said arrangement may not, by itself, confer any right to regular promotion, it supports the applicant's case that he is being entrusted with the duties of the higher post.

17. Learned counsel placed reliance upon the decision in Delhi State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. v. Bharat Ahuja, W.P.(C) No. 12156/2015, decided on 15.05.2018, in support of the submission that an officer's promotion cannot be withheld on the basis of disciplinary proceedings which were not pending at the relevant time.

18. On these grounds, learned counsel submitted that both the deferment decisions are arbitrary and unsustainable and that the applicant is entitled to promotion with all consequential benefits.

19. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents relied on the reply filed by the respondents and submitted that the applicant was the only officer in the zone of consideration but his case could not be considered for promotion in view of the serious allegations of misconduct and supervisory lapses concerning Shed No. 2, Badli Industrial Area.

20. It was submitted that the applicant, while functioning as Divisional Manager, was responsible for supervision of the concerned division and was expected to exercise due diligence in dealing with the property. According to the respondents, the applicant failed to properly examine the relevant records and SOURJYA SOBHANIYA

take appropriate steps when the matter concerning the unauthorised occupation and restoration of the premises came to his notice. His responsibility, it was submitted, was not confined merely to the duties assigned to the Estate Manager or other subordinate officers.

21. Learned counsel submitted that the show cause notice dated 16.04.2025 was issued by the competent authority alleging gross misconduct and that the matter was referred to the Department of Vigilance. The fact that no charge sheet has yet been issued or disciplinary proceedings initiated does not, according to the respondents, render the vigilance observation irrelevant or confer upon the applicant an automatic right to promotion.

22. It was further submitted that the DPC is required to assess the suitability of an officer on the basis of the entire service record and other relevant material. The DPCs held on 23.12.2025 and 07.04.2026 had considered the applicant's case and deferred the same in view of the pending DoV reference dated 09.01.2025. The second DPC had also directed that the reference be disposed of expeditiously and that the applicant's case be placed before the DPC thereafter.

23. Learned counsel further submitted that the current duty charge assigned to the applicant does not confer any right to regular promotion and cannot be relied upon to claim promotion to the higher post.

24. It was, accordingly, submitted that the respondents have acted in accordance with the applicable instructions and that the applicant's case may be considered after the DoV reference is disposed of.

25. Heard the parties and perused the documents on record.

26. The controversy in the present OA is not whether the applicant possesses the requisite eligibility for promotion. The material placed on record indicates that he fulfils the SOURJYA SOBHANIYA

educational and service requirements prescribed under the Recruitment Rules dated 16.02.2021. He had completed five years of regular service as Divisional Manager in May 2025. There was also one vacancy available under the promotion quota, and he was the only eligible officer in the zone of consideration. His APAR gradings were above the prescribed benchmark and his integrity was certified as “Beyond Doubt”.

27. The question which, therefore, arises for consideration is whether the respondents were justified in deferring his promotion merely on account of the pendency of a vigilance reference concerning Shed No. 2, Badli Industrial Area, when none of the three conditions contemplated under the DoPT O.M. dated 02.11.2012 existed.

28. The relevant extract of paragraph 8 of the said O.M. specifically provides that, at the time of consideration of cases for promotion, the details of Government servants falling in the following categories are to be brought to the notice of the DPC:

(i) Government servants under suspension;

(ii) Government servants in respect of whom a charge sheet has been issued and disciplinary proceedings are pending; and

(iii) Government servants in respect of whom prosecution for a criminal charge is pending.

29. The said provision has to be read in the context of the object for which the cases of Government servants under a cloud are brought to the notice of the DPC. The three categories are specifically identified in the O.M. The mere existence of an allegation, a vigilance observation or an investigation, without the matter having reached any of the specified stages, cannot be equated with the pendency of disciplinary proceedings or criminal prosecution. SOURJYA SOBHANIYA

30. In the present case, the position is not even disputed by the respondents. The vigilance status furnished vide letter dated 30.03.2026 clearly certified that the applicant was not under suspension, no charge sheet had been issued and no disciplinary proceedings were pending against him, and no criminal prosecution was pending against him. Thus, none of the three conditions specified in the O.M. was attracted.

31. More importantly, the DPC itself, in its minutes dated 07.04.2026, expressly recorded that the matter did not attract the three conditions laid down in the DoPT O.M. dated 02.11.2012 in which vigilance clearance could be denied. Having recorded so, the DPC nevertheless deferred the applicant's case solely on account of the pendency of the DoV reference dated 09.01.2025.

32. We are unable to appreciate this approach. Once the DPC had itself noticed that none of the three conditions stipulated in the applicable instructions was attracted, the mere pendency of a vigilance reference could not, by itself, furnish a valid ground to indefinitely defer consideration of the applicant's promotion. The respondents cannot, on the one hand, certify that no charge sheet or disciplinary proceedings are pending and that no prosecution is pending, and on the other hand, continue to withhold promotion merely because an internal vigilance reference has not been disposed of.

33. The distinction between a show cause notice and a charge sheet also assumes significance in the present matter. The applicant was issued a show cause notice dated 16.04.2025 and submitted his reply on 16.05.2025. The respondents have not shown that any charge sheet was thereafter issued or that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. The show cause notice, by itself, cannot be treated as a charge sheet accompanied by pending disciplinary proceedings for the purpose of paragraph 8 of the O.M. Similarly, the pendency of a vigilance reference or investigation cannot be treated as pendency of prosecution for a criminal charge. The O.M. itself SOURJYA SOBHANIYA

adopts the definition under the CCS (Pension) Rules, according to which criminal proceedings are deemed to be instituted when the complaint or police report is taken cognizance of by the Magistrate. No such proceedings are stated to be pending against the applicant.

34. The respondents have sought to justify the deferment on the ground that the allegations concerning Shed No. 2 are serious and relate to the applicant's supervisory responsibilities. We are conscious that the DPC is entitled to assess the suitability of an officer on the basis of the relevant service record and material placed before it. However, in the present case, the DPC minutes do not disclose any independent assessment that the applicant was otherwise unsuitable for promotion. On the contrary, the minutes dated 07.04.2026 record that the Committee considered the vacancy position, zone of consideration, APARs, vigilance status and integrity, but deferred the matter only because the DoV reference was pending.

35. The respondents have also not demonstrated that the allegations had been established against the applicant or that any finding of misconduct had been recorded by the competent authority. The applicant's reply to the show cause notice has remained undecided. In these circumstances, the mere pendency of the reference cannot be allowed to operate as an indefinite impediment to his promotion, particularly when the applicable instructions do not contemplate such a consequence.

36. It is also relevant that the first DPC held on 23.12.2025 deferred the applicant's case on the basis of the vigilance observation concerning the same property. Even thereafter, when a fresh vigilance status was obtained and the matter was again considered by the DPC on 07.04.2026, the position remained that no charge sheet, disciplinary proceedings or criminal prosecution was pending. The second DPC expressly acknowledged that none of the three conditions under the O.M. was attracted. Yet, instead of considering the applicant's SOURJYA SOBHANIYA

suitability on the basis of the available service record, it again deferred the matter.

37. The respondents have also stated that the DoV reference could not be disposed of earlier on account of the vacancy in the office of the Chief Vigilance Officer during the relevant period. This administrative circumstance cannot be permitted to prejudice the applicant. The applicant cannot be made to suffer an indefinite postponement of his promotion because the respondents have not been able to complete their internal vigilance examination within a reasonable time.

38. The assignment of current duty charge of Chief Manager to the applicant on 16.04.2026 is not, by itself, sufficient to confer a right to regular promotion. Nevertheless, it is a relevant circumstance which lends support to the applicant's case that he is being entrusted with the duties of the higher post. In any event, the claim for promotion has to be examined on the basis of the Recruitment Rules and the applicable instructions, and not on the basis of the current duty arrangement.

39. We also find that the applicant's case has already been considered by two DPCs. The second DPC examined the relevant material, including the vacancy position, zone of consideration, APARs, vigilance status and integrity. It did not record any deficiency in the applicant's eligibility or service record, nor did it find him unsuitable on any independent ground. The only reason for deferment was the pendency of the DoV reference, despite the express recording that none of the three conditions under the O.M. dated 02.11.2012 was attracted.

40. In these circumstances, remitting the matter to another Review DPC would serve no useful purpose. The issue is not that the applicant's case was omitted from consideration or that some procedural irregularity in the constitution or SOURJYA SOBHANIYA

conduct of the DPC requires correction. The applicant's case has already been considered twice. The reason for which it was deferred has been found to be unsustainable in view of the admitted vigilance status and the express finding recorded by the DPC itself. Sending the matter back to another DPC, without any change in the relevant facts or service record, would merely result in a third consideration of the same material and would prolong the very prejudice which has brought the applicant before this Tribunal. It would also allow the respondents to continue withholding the applicant's promotion on the basis of an internal vigilance reference which has remained undecided for no fault of his.

41. The respondents cannot be permitted to achieve indirectly, by repeatedly deferring the matter, what they could not have done under the applicable instructions. In the absence of any of the three conditions specified in the O.M., and in the absence of any other adverse material or finding of unsuitability recorded by the DPC, a further reference to the DPC would be an empty formality.

42. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered view that the deferment of the applicant's promotion by the DPCs held on 23.12.2025 and 07.04.2026, solely on account of the pendency of the DoV reference dated 09.01.2025, is not sustainable. The same is contrary to the instructions contained in the DoPT O.M. dated 02.11.2012, particularly when the respondents themselves have certified that none of the three conditions specified therein is attracted and the DPC dated 07.04.2026 has expressly recorded the same.

43. Accordingly, the OA deserves to be allowed and is hence allowed. The competent authority amongst the respondents is directed to consider and grant promotion to the applicant to the post of Chief Manager with effect from the date on which he became due for such promotion, subject to the availability SOURJYA SOBHANIYA

of the vacancy, with all consequential service benefits. Let this exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

44. The OA is allowed in the aforesaid terms terms. No costs.

(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi) Member(A) Member(J) /ss/ SOURJYA SOBHANIYA