below the rule and the adverse thing/ entry is amplified in Explanation-2. In terms of Explanation-1, the departmental/criminal proceeding shall be treated as pending only if a charge sheet has been issued to the officer or filed in the Court as the case may be. In Explanation-2, it is amplified that the adverse thing which comes to the notice of the State Government and renders the officer unsuitable for appointment to the IAS should be treated as having come to the notice of the State only if the same has been communicated to the Central Government, which in turn is satisfied that the details furnished by the State Government have a bearing on the suitability of the officer and investigation thereof is essential. In the instant case, this situation clearly did not exist. Hence, this cannot be a ground on which the Integrity Certificate of the applicant was withheld by the State Government just prior to the meeting of the Selection Committee, even though, in their earlier proposal, the State Government had certified his integrity. As far as departmental proceeding is concerned, the State Government had informed the Select Committee that the same were only contemplated against the officer at the time of the meeting of the Selection Committee. No charge sheet had been issued to the officer. Hence, as per the explanation mentioned above, it cannot be said that departmental proceedings were pending against the officer warranting withholding his integrity. The other circumstances in which the integrity could have been withheld also did not exist in the instant case. Thus, it is clear that the State Government was not justified in withholding the integrity of the officer before the Selection Committee meeting held on 20.2.2014. From this, it follows that the inclusion of name of the officer figuring in the suitability list prepared under Regulation 5(5) should have been unconditional and not provisional.
