Dr S M Mannan vs DEPARTMENT OF PROMOTION AND INDUSTRY & INTERNAL TRADE on 5 November 2026

ORDER

Per: Justice S.Sujatha ...........Member(J)

The applicant has filed this original application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: “i. Call for the entire records from the Respondents.

ii. Issue a Writ or Order quashing the Impugned Speaking Order dated 04.11.2025 bearing No. Pers/DCE/A- 68/SMM-03, passed by the Respondent No. 2 (Annexure 'A- 19') at the instance of Respondent No. 1, and consequently:

a. Direct the Respondents to consider the case of the Applicant for promotion to the post of 'Joint Chief Controller of Explosives' and promote him to the said

S SARALADEVI

3 OA 578/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

post with effect from the date his juniors were first promoted, with all consequential benefits.

b. Direct the Respondents to regularize the Applicant's period of suspension (i.e., from 23.09.2019 to 29.05.2024), that includes the period of detention of eight (8) days, with all consequential benefits, including pay and allowances as admissible.

c. Quash the Departmental Inquiry initiated vide Memorandum No. 16 (26) 2019-Vig dated 03.02.2021 issued by the Respondent No. 1 (Annexure 'A-1') and pending against the Applicant, and all further proceedings pursuant thereto.

iii. Pass any other appropriate order as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, including the cost of this Application.”

2. Facts in brief as narrated by the applicant are that the applicant joined service in the year 1998 and served in different capacities in various States and is presently working as Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives, Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization (PESO), Government of India, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada District, Karnataka with effect from 03.08.2018. The

S SARALADEVI

4 OA 578/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

applicant was issued with a charge Memorandum dated 03.02.2021 alleging that the applicant committed gross misconduct by demanding and accepting an illegal gratification of Rs.50,000/- for forwarding inspection report in respect of inspection of two units of M/s.Sanghvi Cylinders Private Limited, during the year 2019. Statement of imputations of misconduct, List of documents and List of Witnesses, were enclosed as Annexures II, III and IV respectively. The applicant preferred Writ Petition No.24119/2022 before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka challenging registration of FIR in R.C.No.16(A)/2019 dated 22.09.2019 and charge sheet filed thereon by the Central Bureau of Investigation (Anti-Corruption Bureau) (‘CBI’ for short) in Special Case No.1161/2020 pending before the XXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru, for offences punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 7, 8 and 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The said Writ Petition was allowed quashing the proceedings in Special Case No.1161/2020 pending before the XXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI cases at Bengaluru arising out of FIR in R.C.No.16(A)/2019 filed by the CBI. Writ Petition No.13654/2024

S SARALADEVI

5 OA 578/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

was filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru against the CBI inasmuch as permitting registration of crime for offence punishable under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 wherein, further proceedings in Special C.C.No.1828/2023 pending before the XXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Special Judge for CBI cases, Bengaluru, has been stayed and has been extended from time to time. It is the grievance of the applicant that despite the aforesaid orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, the respondents are proceeding with the departmental inquiry stalling his promotion. Hence this OA.

3. Learned Counsel Shri S.Abhinag representing the applicant submitted that the impugned order passed mechanically following the CBI’s request is clearly indicative of lack of application of mind and independent assessment by the Disciplinary Authority. The involvement and interference of CBI in the disciplinary inquiry has led to the passing of the impugned order in violation of principles of natural justice. The unlawful interference of the CBI with the inquiry proceedings, has not only displayed administrative over reach and misuse of power but also evinces personal vendetta and

S SARALADEVI

6 OA 578/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

animosity against the applicant, who refused to succumb to their illegal demands. Despite the respondents being made aware of all the facts and circumstances, the respondents have mechanically followed CBI’s request in an arbitrary manner. Admittedly, the departmental inquiry has remained pending for more than four years. As such, the applicant is in any event, entitled for promotion. In support of his contention, the applicant has placed reliance on the OM dated 22.07.2024 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension.

4. Learned Counsel further submitted that when FIR registered against the applicant, has been quashed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, no inference can be drawn to impute any adverse antecedents. The applicant having been honourably acquitted in terms of the order passed in Writ Petition No.24119/2022 by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, is entitled for the request made under the representation. Due to the pendency of departmental inquiry proceedings which was initiated in the year 2021, the applicant’s promotion results are kept in sealed cover thereby denying the promotion to the post of Joint Chief Controller of Explosives, for which he is due since the year, 2020. Hence the

S SARALADEVI

7 OA 578/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

applicant is entitled for promotion to the said post without reference to the pending departmental inquiry/criminal case. Even in subsequent DPCs held resulting in passing of orders dated 16.10.2024, 18.06.2025 and 19.08.2025 promoting officers junior to the applicant, the applicant has been overlooked solely on the ground of pendency of the disciplinary inquiry. Owing to inaction of the respondents, the applicant is drawing the same salary as on December, 2025 as he drew in the month of September, 2019 with no annual increments for over six years. His arrears remain unpaid and his suspension period is yet to be regularized. Placing reliance on FR 54-B (1), learned Counsel submitted that the mandatory requirement of passing of an order regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the applicant for the period of suspension ending with reinstatement has not been made, though the applicant was reinstated on 29.05.2024 after revocation of suspension order. The applicant having been retired from service on 31.05.2026 during the pendency of the present proceedings, only provisional pension has been paid and other retirement benefits have not yet been settled. Owing to the false cases filed by the CBI, the applicant has suffered not only with suspension from his service but the same is causing damage

S SARALADEVI

8 OA 578/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

relating to his increments, promotions, pension etc., inspite of the orders of the Hon’ble High Court. Hence seeks for reliefs claimed.

5. Learned Counsel Shri S.Sugumaran appearing for the respondents submitted that CBI vide letter dated 16.03.2020 furnished the investigation report against the applicant and intimated that sufficient evidence has been revealed in the investigation report for initiating regular departmental action (RDA) against the applicant and for providing sanction of prosecution under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Vigilance Section after examining the investigation report requested Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) to advice regarding the grant of sanction of prosecution under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (amended in 2018) and initiation of regular departmental action. CVC vide OM dated 31.08.2020 advised to initiate departmental proceedings against the applicant for major penalty. Accordingly, charge Memorandum dated 03.02.2021 was issued against the applicant in accordance with the provisions of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

6. Learned Counsel further submitted that though the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No.24119/2022 allowing

S SARALADEVI

9 OA 578/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

the writ petition quashed the proceedings in Special Case No.1161/22020 pending before the XXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI case at Bengaluru arising out of FIR in R.C.No.16(A)/2019, an SLP (Criminal) No.015787/2024 filed against the said order, is pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court. Writ Petition No.13654/2024 filed by the applicant challenging the proceedings initiated permitting registration of crime for offence punishable under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is still pending. The interim order was granted on 28.06.2024 staying further proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.1828/2023 pending before the jurisdictional Court, until the next date of hearing. As regards promotion claimed by the applicant, learned Counsel submitted that Vigilance Section of Respondent No.1 issued OM dated 29.05.2026 notifying inter alia that the applicant is not clear from the vigilance angle due to service of charge sheet dated 03.02.2021, pending departmental inquiry. Immediately upon retirement of the applicant during the pendency of the present proceedings, the applicant vide letter dated 01.06.2026 was notified that the vigilance clearance in applicant’s favour has not been issued, his pension and all other

S SARALADEVI

10 OA 578/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

benefits having been settled and only provisional pension has been sanctioned. CBI informed that SLP (Criminal) No.15787/2024 is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Writ Petition No.13654/2024 is pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru. It was advised by the CBI to keep RDA proceedings in abeyance till the completion of trial in both the cases. However, by communication dated 22.05.2026 CBI has informed that department may proceed with the regular departmental action proceedings against the applicant as per the procedure of the department. Pursuant to which Inquiring Authority and Presenting Officer were appointed. The Inquiring Authority has requested the applicant to appear for the inquiry, to which the applicant has submitted a reply through email dated 13.08.2026 requesting to defer any further proceedings in the departmental inquiry pending adjudication and final outcome in the present OA pending before this Tribunal. Again the Inquiring Authority vide communication dated 14.08.2026 requested the applicant to appear for the final inquiry but the applicant is not ready to participate in the inquiry proceedings.

S SARALADEVI

11 OA 578/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

7. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

8. Article of charge framed against the applicant in terms of the charge Memorandum dated 03.02.2021, reads thus: “Article I That Dr. S.M Mannan while working as public servant in the capacity of Dy. Chief Controller of Explosives, Olo Dy. Chief Controller of Explosives, Sub-circle Office of Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization (PESO) at Mangalore, an attached office under Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT), during the year 2019 committed gross misconduct by demanding and accepting an illegal gratification of Rs 50,000/- for forwarding inspection reports in respect of inspection of two units of M/s Sanghvi Cylinders Private Ltd situated at Plot No.44/B/ Kakati Industrial Area, Kakati, Belgaum, Karnataka and Plot No.36-A, Survey No.150 & 151, Kakati Industrial Area, Kakati, Belgaum, Karnataka to the O/o Chief Controller of Explosives, Nagpur.

Thus by doing so, he failed to maintain absolute integrity, high ethical standards and honesty, misused his position to derive financial benefits and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant and thus violated Rule 3(1)(i), 3(1)(iii), 3(1)(vi). 3(1)(xiv) and 3(1)(xv) of the CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964.”

S SARALADEVI

12 OA 578/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

9. List of documents by which the articles of charge are proposed to be proved refers to: i. Copy of FIR. ii. Proceedings (Mahazar) drawn in RC-16(A)/2019 on 23.09.2019 iii. Copy of search list dated 23.09.2019 for search conducted at the office of the applicant amongst the other documents listed therein.

10. It is true that registration of FIR in RC No.16(A)/2019 and the charge sheet filed thereof by the CBI in Special Case No.1161/2020 before the XXXII Additional City Civil and Session Judge and Special Judge for CBI cases at Bengaluru, was challenged by the applicant in W.P.No.24119/2022 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, whereby the said writ petition has been allowed quashing the proceedings in Special Case at Bengaluru arising out of FIR R.C.No.16(A)/2019, making it clear that the observations made in the course of the order are only for the purpose of consideration of the case of the applicant under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure

S SARALADEVI

13 OA 578/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

Code and the same shall not bind or influence the proceedings against other accused pending before any other fora. SLP (Crl) No.15787/2024 filed by the CBI against the said order before the Hon’ble Apex Court, is pending for consideration.

11. In Writ Petition No.13654/2024 filed by the applicant challenging the proceedings in Special Case No.1161/2020 before the XXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Court, Special Judge for CBI cases for offences punishable under Section 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, an interim order of stay of further proceedings in Special C.C.No.1828/2023 pending before the XXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Special Judge for CBI cases, has been granted and the same is in operation.

12. In subsequent order dated 16.06.2025, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in W.P.No.13654/2024 made it clear that interim order dated 28.06.2024 passed in the said petition shall not effect or impact the promotional chances of the petitioner, who is currently working as Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives, Petroleum & Explosives Safety Organisation (PESO), Government of India.

S SARALADEVI

14 OA 578/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

13. The applicant had submitted representations to the Secretary, DPIIT vide letters dated 15.09.2025, 21.06.2025, 21.04.2025, 06.02.2025, 17.10.2024, 25.09.2024, 09.07.2024 and 01.07.2024, inter alia requesting the following reliefs: i. Dismiss and drop the ongoing Department Inquiry instituted against the applicant. ii. Appropriate directions be issued to process the applicant’s promotion to the post of Joint Chief Controller of Explosives with all consequential benefits. iii. Appropriate directions be issued to regularize the petitioner's suspension period (i.e. from 23/09/2019 to 30/06/2024) with pay and allowances as admissible under FR-54-B. Since the said representations having not been disposed of, applicant preferred Writ Petition No.18340/2025. The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru vide order dated 30.08.2025 disposed of the said Writ Petition directing the competent authority to consider the representations filed by the applicant, as expeditiously as possible within a time frame fixed. In compliance with the said order, the competent authority has passed the speaking order dated 04.11.2025, impugned herein. The relevant paragraph of which reads as under:

S SARALADEVI

15 OA 578/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

“4. Whereas the representations were examined by Explosives Section, DPIIT in consultation with Vigilance Division of DPIIT and the following has been emerged; as communicated vide DPIIT letter no.P-13033/125/2025- EXPLOSIVE dt. 29/10/2025 and the same is reproduced below (copy enclosed): i. CBI has requested to keep the RDA proceedings against Dr. S.M. Mannan, Dy. Chief Controller of Explosives, PESO, Mangalore in abeyance till conclusion of trial in cases RC.16(A)/2019-BLR and RC.15(A)/2020-BL.R. ii. Since the Departmental proceeding against Dr.S.M. Mannan, Dy. Chief Controller of Explosives, PESO is still pending, the matter related to treating Suspension period will be settled only after passing final order in the case by DA. iii. In respect of Vigilance Clearance of Dr. Mannan, it is stated that as per para 1 of DoP&Ts OM No. 22034/4/2012-Estt. (D) dated 02/11/2012 that vigilance clearance for promotion may be denied to Government servant in respect of whom a charge sheet has been issued and the disciplinary proceedings are pending. Since disciplinary proceedings are pending against Dr. Mannan, he may not be treated as clear from Vigilance angle.

S SARALADEVI

16 OA 578/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

Therefore, applicant's representation dated 15/09/2025, 21/06/2025, 21/04/2025, 06/02/2025, 17/10/2024, 25/09/2024, 09/07/2024 and 01/07/2024 may be treated as disposed of.”

14. Aggrieved by the said order three reliefs are claimed by the applicant:

a) To consider the case of the applicant for promotion to the post of Joint Chief Commissioner of Explosives.

In this regard Para-1 of DOPT OM dated 02.11.2012 has been referred by the respondents wherein it is stated that vigilance clearance for promotion may be denied to Government servant in respect of whom a charge sheet has been issued and disciplinary proceedings are pending. In view of the pendency of disciplinary proceedings against the applicant, certainly he may not be treated free from the vigilance angle. The applicant taking shelter under the order of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.13654/2024 dated 16.06.2025, is claiming promotion inter alia contending that he is senior most amongst all the officers in the cadre of Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives, even as per the final seniority list dated 10.04.2024 and the draft seniority list as on 01.01.2025, which has

S SARALADEVI

17 OA 578/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

not been considered for promotion. It is well settled that vigilance clearance is necessary for promotion. Disciplinary proceedings pending against the applicant would certainly block the clearance from vigilance angle. Withholding of vigilance clearance and denial of promotion against pending disciplinary proceedings, cannot be held to be arbitrary or unjustifiable. We are of the considered view that issuing a direction to the respondents to conclude the departmental proceedings pending against the applicant in an expedite manner would resolve the grievance of the applicant regarding promotion as the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings is coming in the way of vigilance clearance, necessary for promotion.

b) Regularisation of applicant’s period of suspension. It is true that the applicant was placed under deemed suspension with effect from 23.09.2019 vide department’s order dated 01.11.2019, which has been extended from time to time and the same was revoked by the competent authority vide order dated 29.05.2024.

FR 54 B reads as under: “(1) When a Government servant who has been suspended is reinstated or would have been so reinstated but for his retirement (including premature retirement) while under suspension, the authority competent to order reinstatement

S SARALADEVI

18 OA 578/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

shall consider and make a specific order (a) regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the Government servant for the period of suspension ending with reinstatement or the date of his retirement (including premature retirement), as the case may be; and (b) whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty.”

In terms of the aforesaid FR, it was mandatory on the part of the respondents to pass the orders as specified therein. But the order dated 29.05.2024, Annexure A6, is silent regarding the same. In the circumstances, we direct the respondents to pass an order in this regard having regard to the material available on record sans deferring the matter awaiting the decision in the pending disciplinary proceedings. Such compliance shall be made in an expedite manner, in any event not later than eight weeks from the date of certified copy of the order.

c) Quashing of the departmental inquiry initiated against the applicant and all further proceedings thereto: As aforesaid, this relief is claimed based on the orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.24119/2022 supra, it is not in dispute that the said orders having not yet reached finality. The order passed in Writ Petition No.24119/2022 is challenged

S SARALADEVI

19 OA 578/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

before the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP No.15787/2024 and the matter is pending. Order passed in Writ Petition No.13654/2024 is only an interim order. Even otherwise, as observed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No.24119/2022 that the said order is binding only for the purpose of consideration of the case of the applicant under Section 482 of Criminal Penal Code. It is trite that the degree of proof required under the criminal proceedings i.e., beyond reasonable doubt is different from the degree of proof required in the disciplinary proceedings, which is based on preponderance of probabilities. Acquittal of a charged officer in the criminal proceedings would not automatically absolve him from the charges levelled against him in the disciplinary proceedings.

15. It is apt to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Union of India and others vs. Kunnishetty Satyanarayana reported in 2006 (12) SCC 28, wherein it is categorically held that a mere show cause notice or charge sheet does not infringe the right of any one. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affect the party is passed, the party is said to have any grievance. In the light of the said judgment, quashing of the

S SARALADEVI

20 OA 578/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

charge Memorandum and the proceedings pursuant thereto, does not arise at this stage.

16. Though CBI is an outside agency and cannot control the departmental proceedings, as the genesis of the cases relates to the information received from the CBI and the litigation was pending against the CBI before the judicial forums, no fault can be found if the department keeps the disciplinary proceedings in abeyance on the advice of the CBI. However, now the Inquiring Authority and the Presenting Officer having been appointed and the Inquiring Authority having issued notices to the applicant to participate in the inquiry, we are of the considered view that the interest of justice would be sub-served in directing the Inquiring Authority to conclude the disciplinary proceedings in an expedite manner, in any event not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. The applicant is directed to co-operate for concluding the inquiry in an expedite manner.

S SARALADEVI

21 OA 578/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

17. For the reasons aforesaid, we pass the following:

O R D E R

i. The Respondents are directed to pass an order under FR 54-B regarding pay and allowances to be paid to the applicant for the period of suspension ending with reinstatement and whether or not the said period shall be treated as periods spent on duty keeping in mind revocation of suspension order of the applicant as per Annexure A6 dated 29.05.2024. Compliance shall be made in an expedite manner, in any event not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. ii. The Respondents are directed to conclude the disciplinary proceedings pending against the applicant pursuant to the charge memo dated 03.02.2021 in an expedite manner in any event not later than four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

S SARALADEVI

22 OA 578/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

iii. OA stands disposed of in terms of above. All pending MAs stand disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.

sd/-

sd/- (DR. SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA)

MEMBER(A)

MEMBER(J) sd.

S SARALADEVI