Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench

Vijay Rajmohan vs Union Of India & Others

Central Administrative Tribunal · Decided on 25 March 2021 · Citation: (2021) 03 CAT CK 0149

HON’BLE JUDGES
L. Narasimha Reddy, J · A. K. Bishnoi, Member (A)
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Original Application No. 100, 644 Of 2021

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 267 words

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

1.

The applicant is working as Director (Trade) in the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare. On account of pendency of a criminal case against him, he was not being issued the Vigilance Clearance and that, in turn, impacted his promotion. On 17.12.2018, the applicant made a representation to the respondents, stating that the CBI Court at Chennai acquitted him in CC No. 3/2018, vide its judgment dated 13.12.2018, and requested the respondents to take the same into account and do the needful. This was followed by

various representations, the latest one being dated 11.03.2021. The grievance of the applicant is that no action has been taken thereon so far.

2.

Today, we heard Mrs. Rashmi Chopra, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Y.P. Singh & Shri Hanu Bhaskar, learned counsel for respondents.

3.

Obviously because a criminal case was pending against the applicant, certain benefits could not be extended to him. The applicant has enclosed a copy of the judgment dated 13.12.2018, rendered by the Trial Court, through which he was acquitted in the criminal case. That needs to be taken into account by the respondents and if any benefit was denied to him on account of the pendency of the criminal case, the same needs to be extended to him.

4.

We, therefore, dispose of the O.A., directing the respondents No.1 to 3 to pass orders on the representation dated 11.03.2021 submitted by the applicant, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

There shall be no order as to costs.