Court Rules Absence of Specific Departmental Directions and Bona Fide Conduct Means No Misconduct; Charges Against Rajesh Kumar Singh Set Aside
In a significant judgment delivered on September 28, 2026, the Allahabad High Court (Division Bench, Lucknow) quashed the charge-sheet and departmental proceedings initiated against Rajesh Kumar Singh, a government officer, who had given a `no objection' statement before the Special CBI Court regarding a closure report filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The Court held that the officer's conduct was bona fide, without mala fide intent, collusion, or corrupt motive, and that no clear departmental direction was issued to oppose the CBI closure report. Thus, no misconduct under Rule 3(1) of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 was made out against him.
Background:
Rajesh Kumar Singh, while serving as Joint Secretary and Chief Vigilance Officer in the Department of Heavy Industry, Government of India, had lodged the First Information Report (FIR) that led to the CBI investigation against Shri M.K. Singh, then CMD of M/s Bridge and Roof Co. (India) Ltd., Kolkata. After the investigation, CBI filed a closure report before the Special CBI Court stating no evidence substantiated the allegations in the FIR. The Department of Heavy Industry attempted to substitute the complainant but failed, and the petitioner was directed to appear before the Court on September 1, 2018. At the hearing, based on advice from the prosecuting officer and consultation with the Chief Vigilance Officer of the company, Rajesh Kumar Singh gave a statement of `no objection' to the closure report, which was then accepted by the Court.
Controversy and Disciplinary Action:
The Department viewed the petitioner's `no objection' as a failure to protect Government interests and initiated disciplinary proceedings against him, alleging misconduct for acting contrary to departmental directions. The petitioner challenged this charge, arguing that no specific instructions were issued to oppose the closure report, and that the Department itself had not reviewed the detailed investigation report before the hearing. Moreover, no protest petition opposing the closure report had been filed by the Department.
Key Legal Findings:
1. No Specific Directions to Oppose Closure Report: The Court meticulously examined two critical letters dated August 20, 2018, from the Department of Heavy Industry to the CBI and other officials. These letters revealed the Department's dissatisfaction with the investigation but also showed that the detailed investigation report was not provided to the Department. The letters requested the CBI to re-examine the case but did not explicitly instruct the petitioner to oppose the closure report at the Court.
2. No Requirement of Complainant's Consent to Closure Report: Under Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), the Court alone decides whether to accept or reject a closure report filed by the investigating agency. There is no statutory requirement for the complainant's consent or no-objection for acceptance. If the complainant wishes to oppose the closure report, the proper course is to file a protest petition. Since the Department never filed such a petition nor instructed the petitioner to do so, his `no objection' statement could not be construed as misconduct.
3. Meaning and Scope of `Misconduct' in Service Law: The Court relied extensively on Supreme Court precedents clarifying that `misconduct' means a transgression of an established and definite rule of action, wilful unlawful behavior, or conduct inconsistent with the faithful discharge of duties. Mere errors of judgment, negligence, or decisions taken bona fide without corrupt intent do not ordinarily amount to misconduct. The petitioner's statement was made in good faith, without mala fide or corrupt motives, and hence could not be treated as misconduct.
4. Judicial Review of Charge-Sheet at Threshold: The Court held that if the bare reading of the charge-sheet does not disclose any misconduct or violation of conduct rules, judicial interference is justified even at the charge-sheet stage. Since the foundational documents and the charge itself failed to show any misconduct, the disciplinary proceedings were unsustainable.
5. Protection of Public Servants Acting Bona Fide: The judgment emphasized that senior officers cannot be subjected to disciplinary proceedings merely because a disciplinary authority believes another course might have been more prudent. Bona fide decisions taken in exigent circumstances must not be subjected to microscopic scrutiny to find fault, as this would adversely affect public administration and deter officers from acting in public interest.
Outcome and Directions:
The Allahabad High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the charge-sheet dated April 27, 2023, and all consequential disciplinary proceedings and penalty orders against Rajesh Kumar Singh. The respondents were directed to restore all service benefits, including promotions and monetary entitlements, within twelve weeks.
Significance:
This judgment underscores the importance of clear departmental instructions in disciplinary proceedings and safeguards government officers from arbitrary action when they act in good faith without malice. It reiterates that mere differences in administrative approach or lack of prudence do not constitute misconduct, thereby strengthening the principles of fairness and justice in service jurisprudence.
Bottom Line:
Service Law - Departmental proceedings - Charge-sheet can be quashed at threshold where bare reading of article of charge does not disclose any misconduct - Bona fide statement of "no objection" by officer before Special CBI Court, in absence of specific departmental directions to oppose closure report and in absence of mala fides, collusion or corrupt motive, does not amount to misconduct under Rule 3(1) of All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968.
Statutory provision(s):
All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 Rule 3(1), All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 Rule 7, Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Sections 13(1)(d), 13(2)
Rajesh Kumar Singh v. Union of India, (All)(DB)(Lucknow) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2988335
