Quashing disciplinary proceedings requires grant of vigilance clearance and consideration for consequential absorption benefits.

The applicant challenged the respondents’ order dated 29 September 2023, by which vigilance clearance was denied and his absorption in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) was not processed.

The denial was based on the respondents’ decision to initiate major-penalty disciplinary proceedings against him, notwithstanding his acquittal by the CBI Court, Jaipur, on 14 July 2022 in FIR No. RC JAI 2002(A) 0015.

During the pendency of the present Original Application, the respondents issued a charge memorandum dated 10 September 2024 under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

That charge memorandum and the consequential disciplinary proceedings were subsequently quashed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 670/2025, with directions to treat the proceedings as non-est and reconsider the applicant’s claim for vigilance clearance and consequential service benefits.

The applicant consequently sought quashing of the order dated 29 September 2023, issuance of vigilance clearance and the Presidential Order for absorption in BSNL, and consideration for promotions and financial upgradations with consequential benefits.

1. Whether the order dated 29 September 2023 denying vigilance clearance and withholding the applicant’s absorption in BSNL could survive after the disciplinary proceedings relied upon by the respondents had been quashed and declared non-est.

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to consideration for absorption, promotions, post-based advancements and financial upgradations under BSNL’s EPP Policy, along with consequential monetary and service benefits.

The application was filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which empowers the Tribunal to adjudicate service-related grievances.

The respondents’ disciplinary action had been initiated under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965; however, the charge memorandum and consequential proceedings had already been quashed in O.A. No. 670/2025 and directed to be treated as non-est.

The Tribunal applied the consequential-relief principle that, once the disciplinary proceedings forming the basis for denial of vigilance clearance are invalidated, the employee’s claims for vigilance clearance and related service benefits must be reconsidered in accordance with the applicable rules and instructions, uninfluenced by the invalid proceedings.

No independent judicial precedent was cited in the order.

The Tribunal found that the sole basis for denying vigilance clearance was materially undermined because the disciplinary proceedings initiated through the memorandum dated 10 September 2024 had been quashed in the applicant’s earlier case and declared non-est.

Applying the directions in O.A. No. 670/2025, the Tribunal held that the respondents could no longer rely on those proceedings to sustain the impugned order dated 29 September 2023.

The applicant’s claim for absorption therefore required issuance of vigilance clearance and the Presidential Order, while his claims for promotions and financial upgradations had to be considered under the applicable BSNL rules and instructions, with consequential benefits where legally due.

It quashed and set aside the order dated 29 September 2023.

The respondents were directed to issue the necessary order granting vigilance clearance and to issue the Presidential Order for the applicant’s absorption in BSNL.

They were further directed to consider the applicant for post-based promotions and financial upgradations under the EPP Policy, together with consequential monetary and service benefits, including arrears, seniority and pay fixation with interest, in accordance with the applicable rules and instructions.

Compliance was directed preferably within eight weeks from receipt of the certified copy of the order.

The OA was disposed of without costs.