Vigilance clearance cannot be denied for new appointments unless a formal chargesheet or suspension is pending.

The applicant, an Assistant Accounts Officer (AAO) at the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), was selected via direct recruitment by the UPSC for the post of Assistant Director (Cost) in the Indian Cost Accounts Service (ICoAS).

On May 29, 2025, he submitted his technical resignation with a lien request to join the new post. Although DDA (Respondent Nos. 3 4) relieved him on September 29, 2025, they included a remark stating his name appeared in an investigation for a vigilance case where a "show cause/call version" was to be issued.

Consequently, the Ministry of Finance (Respondent Nos. 1 2) refused to accept his joining on October 1, 2025, citing an unclear vigilance status.

The applicant challenged these orders, noting that No Objection was previously granted for his interview and no formal charges had been framed as of the relieving date.

1. Whether the respondents could legally deny vigilance clearance and prevent the applicant from joining his new appointment based on a pending investigation that had not reached the stage of a formal charge sheet.

2. Whether the subsequent decision to initiate minor penalty proceedings (taken months after the joining date) justifies the initial denial of joining.

Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) OM dated 09.10.2024, which provides revised guidelines for the grant of ‘Vigilance Clearance’.

Under Paragraph 8 of the OM, vigilance clearance can only be denied if: (a) a preliminary inquiry establishes prima facie substance in allegations of corruption or moral turpitude; (b) the officer is under suspension; (c) disciplinary proceedings are initiated via a served charge sheet; or (d) criminal prosecution is pending.

DoPT OM dated 14.07.1993, which stipulates that an employee should be released for a new appointment unless a charge sheet for penalty or prosecution has been issued by the time of actual selection.

The Tribunal found that on the critical date of relieving (September 29, 2025), the applicant did not meet any of the criteria for denial of vigilance clearance listed in the DoPT guidelines.

Specifically, no charge sheet had been issued, no suspension was in place, and no preliminary findings of corruption had been recorded.

The court noted that a "Call Version" (request for explanation) issued in July 2025 does not equate to the initiation of formal disciplinary proceedings.

Furthermore, the DDA’s decision to initiate minor penalty proceedings on December 19, 2025, occurred nearly three months after the applicant was due to join, and thus could not retrospectively validate the denial of joining in October.

The court reasoned that since the applicant’s prior conduct remains subject to investigation even after joining a new department, his joining would not provide immunity or impede the investigation.

It directed Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to allow the applicant to join as Assistant Director (Cost) with consequential benefits regarding seniority and grade based on his merit position, though without arrears of wages. The Tribunal granted DDA (Respondent Nos. 3 4) the liberty to proceed with the minor penalty proceedings initiated in December 2025.