The Allahabad High Court has quashed disciplinary proceedings against a former Chief Vigilance Officer who gave his “no objection” to a CBI closure report, holding that a bona fide judgment which ran contrary to departmental expectation is not misconduct.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Lucknow: The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has set aside an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal and quashed a 2023 charge sheet issued to an All India Services officer of the Uttar Pradesh cadre, who was proceeded against departmentally for stating “no objection” before a Special CBI Court to the agency’s closure report in a corruption case he had himself set in motion as Chief Vigilance Officer of the Department of Heavy Industries. [Rajesh Kumar Singh v. U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pensions New Delhi and Another]
A Division Bench of Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai allowed the writ petition, quashed the charge sheet, the disciplinary proceedings and all consequential penalty orders, and directed restoration of all service benefits within twelve weeks. The judgment was authored by Justice Alok Mathur.
Background
The petitioner served as Joint Secretary and Chief Vigilance Officer in the Department of Heavy Industries, Government of India, until 4 October 2016. During his tenure, the CBI’s Anti-Corruption Branch at Kolkata registered an FIR on 27 May 2016 under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120B read with Section 420 of the IPC against the then Chairman-cum-Managing Director of M/s Bridge and Roof Co. (India) Ltd., Kolkata, over alleged siphoning of funds.
The petitioner was then posted to the UIDAI and later served as Divisional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, until 30 June 2018. The CBI meanwhile filed a closure report. On 20 August 2018, the Department wrote to the petitioner asking him to appear before the Special (CBI) Court on 1 September 2018. When he appeared as the complainant on that date, he stated that he had no objection to the closure report, which was accepted.
On 27 April 2023, nearly five years later, a charge memorandum was issued to him. The single article of charge alleged that he furnished “no objection” to the closure report “in contravention of the written directions received from the Department” and thereby “failed to defend the interests of the Department of Heavy Industries”, in violation of Rule 3(1) of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow rejected his original application on 19 December 2025, following which he approached the High Court.
Submissions
The petitioner contended that no instruction had been issued to him to oppose the closure report, that the charge was vague and belated, and that criminal procedure law does not provide for a complainant to furnish a “no objection” to a closure report; the only remedy is a protest petition, which the Department never filed.
The Union of India argued that giving “no objection” contrary to the directions of the Department amounted to misconduct.
No clear directions, no protest petition
Examining the two letters dated 20 August 2018, the Court found that the Department had never considered the material relied on by the CBI and had no basis to seek a re-look at the investigation.
“Inasmuch as the closure report was never considered by the Department of Heavy Industries, Government of India and without perusal of the closure report, it is not possible for any reasonable person to come to the conclusion that the investigation requires a re-look. Zealousness cannot override the legal requirements necessary for a challenge to be made to a closure report submitted by the Investigating Agency.”
“Needless to say, the only course open to the Department of Heavy Industries, Government of India was to prefer a protest petition before Special (CBI) Court opposing the closure report submitted by C.B.I. There is no dispute in this regard, rather it is admitted by the respondents that no protest petition was ever filed before Special (CBI) Court nor was the order accepting the closure report challenged before any court of competent jurisdiction. Accordingly, from the aforesaid material, it is evident, that no directions were issued to the petitioner to oppose the closure report submitted by C.B.I.”
The Bench also accepted that the petitioner’s statement had no bearing on the outcome before the trial court:
“We further find that there are no allegations of mala fides levelled against the petitioner nor is there any allegation that he was in collusion with the accused or the Investigating Agency. The statement, if any, given by him before the Trial Court was bona fide. Accordingly, in such circumstances, his giving no objection before the Trial Court could not be construed as misconduct warranting the initiation of departmental proceedings.”
What constitutes misconduct
The Court held that misconduct “has to be understood as a transgression of some established and definite rule of action; a forbidden act; unlawful behaviour; or conduct that is wilful in character”, and found that the letters of 20 August 2018 gave the petitioner no clear direction to make any statement before the Special Court. It then held that the entire disciplinary exercise was flawed from the start:
“The entire exercise of disciplinary action, taken in the present case against the petitioner, stands vitiated, ab initio, having been initiated, and proceeded with, in complete ignorance, or, possibly, in deliberate disregard, of what constitutes “misconduct”, as to justify action against the officer guilty thereof.”
Cautioning against microscopic scrutiny of decisions taken in good faith, the Bench observed:
“Officers cannot be penalized for losses suffered by the organization, where they have acted in the best interests of the organization, and as per their best judgment, untainted by malafide, ulterior motives, or corrupt considerations. Else, the proverbial sword would forever be hanging over the heads of these officers, thereby inhibiting them from acting on the basis of their best judgment, or analysis, of the situation – a position which no civilized legal system can tolerate.”
“In the present case, an officer acting bona fide without any trace of corrupt intent, ill-motive, or personal gain, cannot be said to have committed “misconduct”. The mere fact that his statement ran contrary to the departmental expectation encapsulated in the D.O. letter dated 20.08.2018 does not transform a bonafide exercise of judgment into a disciplinary delinquency. In the absence of any finding that the petitioner acted out of malice, bad faith, or corrupt considerations, the initiation and continuation of disciplinary proceedings against him are wholly unsustainable in law and deserve to be quashed.”
The Court clarified that officers whose acts are tainted by malice, wilful impropriety or corrupt motives can expect no leniency, but said it would be “folly” to proceed departmentally against officers merely because, in the perception of the establishment, an action was imprudent, negligent or careless.
Operative directions
“The respondents are directed to restore all service benefits, including promotional and monetary entitlements, to which the petitioner would have been entitled had such disciplinary proceedings not been initiated against him, within a period of twelve weeks from today.”
Why The Bona Fide Judgment Ruling Matters
The ruling draws a clear line between misconduct and a good-faith judgment call that a department later regrets. It holds that a department which wants to challenge a CBI closure report must file a protest petition itself, and cannot instead discipline an officer years later for not opposing the report in court without any clear written direction to do so.
Case Title: Rajesh Kumar Singh v. U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pensions New Delhi and Another | Writ-A No. 2677 of 2026 | Judgment reserved on 29 July 2026, delivered on 28 September 2026 | Bench: Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai
Appearances: For the Petitioner: Mr. Vishwajit Singh, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Saurabh Yadava, Mr. Pratham Harsh Chandra and Mr. Puneet Chandra. For the Respondents: Mr. S.B. Pandey, Senior Advocate and Deputy Solicitor General, with Mr. Raj Kumar Singh; A.S.G.I.; C.S.C.
READ JUDGEMENT: Rajesh Kumar Singh v. Union of India