Sunil Kumar vs Union Of India & Others

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

The applicant was appointed as a Senior Scientific Officer Grade-II in the Directorate General of Quality Assurance (DGQA) by the UPSC in the year 2016. He was kept on probation for a period of four years. The Committee considered the case of the applicant in the context of declaration of probation. However, on account of the fact that the applicant was part of a Selection Committee for appointment of LDCs, and the CBI registered a case in relation thereto, the sealed cover procedure was adopted. The applicant felt aggrieved by the action of the respondents in adopting sealed cover procedure and non declaration of his probation. He filed this OA with a prayer to direct the respondents to open the sealed cover, to declare his probation, and to extend other consequential benefits.

The respondents filed a counter affidavit stating that the sealed cover procedure was adopted on account of the pendency of the investigation by the CBI and the necessary steps would be taken depending upon the conclusion of the CBI investigation.

The applicant filed a rejoinder. With leave of this Tribunal, the respondents filed a sur-rejoinder. It is stated that the CBI filed a charge sheet against one Mr. Tiwari, the head of the Selection committee, but did not find anything against the applicant. It is also stated that narrating these facts, a note has been submitted to the Ministry of Defence, for issuance of a vigilance clearance to the applicant so that necessary steps can be taken for declaration of the probation.

We heard Shri Padma Kumar S., learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Aishwarya Dobhal, proxy for Shri Hilal Haider, learned counsel for the respondents.

The adoption of sealed cover procedure in respect to the applicant, in the context of declaration of probation, was on account of the pendency of investigation by the CBI, that was in progress in relation to the selection/appointment of six LDCs. Since the applicant was one of the Members of the Committee, the DPC did not find it appropriate to declare its assessment about him.

Whatever may have been the circumstances under which the sealed cover procedure was adopted, now that it has emerged, that the CBI submitted its final report and did not find anything against the applicant, as is evident from the sur-rejoinder filed by the respondents, the cover needs to be opened. The only necessity is to get the vigilance clearance from the Ministry. The respondents are said to have addressed a letter in February, 2021 in this behalf, and as soon as the vigilance clearance is obtained, the sealed cover can be opened and necessary steps need to be taken.

We, therefore, dispose of the O.A directing that :

(a) the issue pertaining to issuance of vigilance clearance of the applicant shall be decided within four weeks; and

(b) in case the vigilance clearance is given, further steps in the context of declaration of his probation shall be completed within four weeks thereafter.

There shall be no order as to costs.