A pending CBI investigation alone cannot justify withholding promotion absent suspension or charge-sheet.

The applicant, a Superintending Engineer in the Military Engineer Services, was assessed “FIT” by the DPC for promotion to Chief Engineer for panel year 2022.

Although technically clear from the vigilance angle, his empanelment was deferred because a CBI investigation concerning alleged recruitment irregularities was pending.

The Tribunal had earlier directed the Ministry of Defence to decide his representation; the Ministry rejected it on the ground that the investigation remained ongoing.

The applicant later placed on record a CBI Closure Report forwarded to the Special Judge on 30 June 2025.

He had not been suspended, no departmental proceedings had been initiated, and no criminal charge-sheet had been filed against him.

After retiring on 30 September 2025, he sought notional promotion and consequential benefits.

Whether the applicant’s empanelment for promotion could lawfully be deferred solely because of a pending CBI investigation, when he was not under suspension and no departmental charge-sheet or criminal charge-sheet had been issued

Whether the applicant was entitled to notional promotion to Chief Engineer for the relevant panel year, with consequential benefits, after the CBI investigation resulted in a Closure Report

In Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, (1991) 4 SCC 109, the Supreme Court held that the sealed-cover procedure may be used only in the prescribed circumstances, including suspension, issuance of a disciplinary charge memorandum, or initiation of criminal prosecution by filing a charge-sheet; a preliminary investigation alone is insufficient.

Union of India v. Dr. Sudha Salhan, (1998) 3 SCC 394, reaffirmed that where an employee is neither under suspension nor facing initiated disciplinary proceedings on the date of consideration, a suitable candidate’s name must be considered for the select list and sealed-cover treatment is unavailable.

DoP&T’s Office Memorandum dated 14 September 1992 identifies the relevant categories for consideration, while the Office Memorandum dated 2 November 2012 reiterates the applicable vigilance-clearance instructions for promotion.

The Tribunal also noted that the 14 December 2007 OM’s “empanelment” instructions do not govern promotion cases, which are addressed by the 1992 and subsequent promotion instructions.

The applicant had been found fit by the DPC and was technically clear from the vigilance angle; the only stated basis for deferral was the CBI investigation.

Because he was not suspended, no departmental proceedings had been initiated, and no criminal charge-sheet had been filed, the circumstances did not satisfy the requirements for withholding promotion under Jankiraman and the applicable DoP&T instructions.

In addition, the investigation had concluded and the CBI had forwarded a Closure Report to the Special Judge, so continued deferment on the basis of that investigation could not be sustained.

It directed the respondents to consider and grant the applicant notional promotion to Chief Engineer for the relevant panel year, from the date his immediate juniors were promoted, with all consequential benefits, in accordance with law.

Pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of, with no order as to costs.