Disciplinary proceedings prevent granting financial upgradation despite prior quashed disciplinary orders.

The applicant, Radhakrishna Mallya, filed Miscellaneous Application No. 170/00517/2025 seeking to revive Contempt Petition No. 37/2025, which had been dismissed as withdrawn on 31.10.2025.

The original Contempt Petition was filed alleging breach and wilful disobedience of an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in Original Application (OA) No. 526/2023 dated 01.10.2024.

In OA No. 526/2023, the CAT had directed the respondents to consider the applicant's case for the grant of Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- within eight weeks.

The respondents, in their reply to the Contempt Petition, stated that the Departmental Screening Committee (DSC) did not recommend the applicant's case for Non-Functional Grade (NFG) due to pending disciplinary proceedings.

Specifically, a memorandum of charges had been issued to the applicant under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, on 30.12.2019, finalized on 01.06.2020, and an appeal was rejected on 29.09.2020.

The applicant had challenged these disciplinary proceedings in OA No. 200/2023, where the CAT, in its order dated 25.02.2025, quashed the disciplinary authority memo and directed a fresh inquiry.

The applicant claimed that the Contempt Petition was withdrawn by his counsel without consent and that the respondents had misled the Tribunal by alleging active disciplinary proceedings only after the Contempt Petition was filed, whereas no such information was provided earlier.

Whether the Miscellaneous Application seeking revival of Contempt Petition No. 37/2025 should be allowed.

Whether the respondents were in wilful disobedience or breach of the order passed in OA No. 526/2023 by not granting Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- to the applicant due to pending disciplinary proceedings.

The court primarily applied the principle that compliance with tribunal orders must be "in accordance with law".

Vigilance clearance is an important criterion for financial upgradation.

It also considered the impact of ongoing disciplinary proceedings on an employee's eligibility for such benefits, as determined by a Departmental Screening Committee.

The court implicitly invoked the standard for contempt, requiring "wilful disobedience or breach" of an order.

The court determined that the respondents had considered the applicant's case for Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- as directed in OA No. 526/2023.

However, the Departmental Screening Committee (DSC) did not recommend the grant of NFG due to ongoing disciplinary proceedings against the applicant, and vigilance clearance was deemed an essential criterion for such upgradation.

The court rejected the applicant's argument that no disciplinary proceedings were pending at the time of the OA order or filing of the Contempt Petition.

It noted that the original charge memo dated 30.12.2019 was not set aside by the Tribunal in OA No. 200/2023 but rather a fresh inquiry was directed, meaning disciplinary proceedings remained pending and active.

Consequently, the DSC's decision to not recommend the financial upgradation due to the pendency of disciplinary proceedings constituted compliance with the Tribunal's direction to consider the case "in accordance with law," as vigilance clearance is a mandatory requirement.

The liberty to revive the Contempt Petition was reserved for the petitioner only "if the need arises", which implied after the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings.

It held that no wilful disobedience or breach of the order passed in OA No. 526/2023 was found, as the respondents had considered the applicant's case in accordance with law, and the denial of Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- was based on the legitimate ground of pending disciplinary proceedings and lack of vigilance clearance.

Therefore, there was no reason to recall the order dated 31.10.2025 and revive Contempt Petition No. 37/2025.