Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
W.P.(C) 3842/2025
Page 1 of 8
$~22
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 04.12.2025
+
W.P.(C) 3842/2025 & CM APPL. 17868/2025
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
.....Petitioners
Through:
Ms.Pratima N. Lakra, CGSC
with
Mr.Shailendra
Kumar
Mishra,
Ms.Mansi
and
Mr.Chanakya Kene, Advs.
versus
N MOHAN KRISHNA
.....Respondent
Through:
Mr.M.
K.
Bhardwaj,
Ms.Priyanka
Bhardwaj
and
Mr.Praveen Kaushik, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
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:
“18. Resultantly, the O.A. is allowed and the
impugned orders, i.e. Charge Memo dated
16.02.2015,
Disagreement
Note
dated
13.11.2017
and
Penalty
Order
dated
18.02.2020, are quashed and set aside. As an
Digitally Signed
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:09.12.2025
18:22:09
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3842/2025
Page 2 of 8
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:
“15. However, it is undisputed that the
applicant was issued 1st Memo on 17.10.2012
and, in response thereto, he submitted his
reply denying the allegation in the memo and
also deposited the T.A. bill amount along with
interest. However, after more than three years
in 2015, he was issued the impugned Charge
Memo and, thereafter, the penalty order was
issued in 2020, after a lapse of about 8 years,
whereas as per the CVC instructions dated
18.01.2016, the respondents were required to
settle the issue within one year. It is also
undisputed that due to the inordinate delay
caused in initiation and conducting of the
disciplinary proceedings, the applicant was
not only imposed with penalty of reduction of
two stages but also denied the due promotions,
that too, without any evidence/material on
record for conducting any misconduct by
him.”
Digitally Signed
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:09.12.2025
18:22:09
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3842/2025
Page 3 of 8
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
Digitally Signed
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:09.12.2025
18:22:09
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3842/2025
Page 4 of 8
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
Digitally Signed
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:09.12.2025
18:22:09
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3842/2025
Page 5 of 8
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
2
Promotion
of
the
Grade
of
Deputy
Commissioner
17.10.2015 (Ad-hoc)
01.04.2015 (Regular)
3
Promotion
to
the
Grade
of
Joint
Commissioner
01.01.2020
4
Promotion to the Grade of Additional
Commissioner
01.01.2023
5
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
4
Promotion
to
the
Grade
of
Deputy
Commissioner
(after
completion
of
punishment)
25.02.2022
5
Expected Promotion as Joint Commissioner
01.01.2027
Digitally Signed
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:09.12.2025
18:22:09
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3842/2025
Page 6 of 8
(as per RR 2017)
6
Expected
Promotion
as
Additional
Commissioner
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)
1
Appointment as Assistant
Commissioner
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 4 Likely Date of completion of Penalty imposed on Respondent 16.11.2017 16.08.2018 5 Likely Date of Promotion as Deputy Commissioner as per RR 01.01.2018 01.01.2019 6 Likely Date of Promotion of Joint Commissioner as per RR 01.01.2023 01.01.2024 7 Likely Date of Promotion of Additional Commissioner 01.01.2024 01.01.2025 8 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., W.P.(C) 3842/2025
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:
“26. Mere delay during the inquiry proceedings, when it is explained with regard to the time taken for the inquiry to conclude and that too justifying the same with no prejudice having been caused, cannot be made the basis for vitiating the departmental proceedings. Inordinate or unexplained delay in the departmental proceedings may be a justifiable ground if tampered with prejudice having been established to have been caused to the delinquent employee in the said process for interference by the Court. In the present case, the same is absent and therefore the said plea of delay fails.”
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, W.P.(C) 3842/2025
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
