Dismissed¶17

Union of India & Anr. v. Randhir Kumar Sinha

Delhi HC1 Apr 2026W.P.(C)/4152/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Vigilance clearance denial; promotion withheld; Defence Public Sector Undertaking; Director (Operations); Chairman and Managing Director; unblemished career 38 years; criminal case property dispute cousin; police closure report; cognizance stayed by High Court of Patna; Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench O.A. No. 2427/2024; order dated 20.11.2025; Article 226 Constitution of India; writ petition dismissed; pending applications disposed; Delhi High Court; Anil Kshetarpal; Amit Mahajan; 01.04.2026.

What did the court decide?

None; the petition was dismissed and the pending applications stand disposed of. ¶17

Union of India & Anr. Vs Randhir Kumar Sinha — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the petition was dismissed and the pending applications stand disposed of.

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the Petitioners' challenge to the Tribunal's order dated 20.11.2025 in O.A. No. 2427/2024 concerning denial of vigilance clearance to the Respondent.

¶10

Court's answer

This Court endorsed the impugned Tribunal order, finding that the learned Tribunal rightly formed the opinion that the Respondent, who has had an unblemished career for about 38 years, could not be indefinitely denied vigilance clearance on account of pendency of a criminal case between cousins.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

Keeping in view the facts (police closure report; Trial Court's cognizance stayed by the High Court), this Court did not find it appropriate to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Anil Kshetarpal & Amit Mahajan, JJ.) — Writ petition by Union of India & Anr. challenging CAT, Principal Bench order dated 20.11.2025 in O.A. No. 2427/2024 dismissed. The Respondent, a government employee of over three decades with an unblemished career of about 38 years and no complaint or Show Cause Notice against him, was denied vigilance clearance — and thereby promotion to Director (Operations) and Chairman and Managing Director posts in Defence PSUs — solely because of a pending criminal case over a property dispute instituted by his cousin, a case unconnected with his official duties, in which the Police filed a closure report and the Trial Court's cognizance stood stayed by the High Court of Patna. Endorsing the Tribunal's view that such a person could not be indefinitely denied vigilance clearance, the Court declined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and dismissed the petition, disposing of pending applications.

¶1

$~43

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 4152/2026, CM APPL. 20296/2026, CM APPL. 20297/2026, CM APPL. 20298/2026 UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Petitioners

¶4

Through: Mr Premtosh K Mishra CGSC, Mr Shrey Sharma, Mr Anubhav Upadhyay, Mr Arpit Bamal, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

RANDHIR KUMAR SINHA .....Respondent Through:

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

¶9

O R D E R % 01.04.2026

¶10

Through the present Writ Petition, inter alia , the Petitioners have challenged the correctness of order dated 20.11.2025 (hereafter ‘ impugned order ’), passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 2427/2024.

¶11

The Respondent was working with Petitioner No. 1 for a period of over three decades. Admittedly, there has been no complaint in relation to the Respondent’s services. Even, no Show Cause Notice has been issued to him during all these years. The Respondent applied for senior level position, namely, Director (Operations) and also Chairman and Managing Director in Defence Public Sector Undertakings. The Respondent’s promotion was withheld on account of vigilance clearance.

¶12

This is a digitally signed order.

¶13

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/04/2026 at 11:11:05

¶14

The Respondent was denied vigilance clearance on the basis of a criminal case instituted against him and his family members by his cousin in regard to a property dispute. Undisputedly, the aforesaid criminal case has no connection whatsoever with the performance of duties of the Respondent. Even in that case, the cognizance taken by the learned Trial Court was stayed by the High Court of Patna. Aggrieved by the denial of vigilance clearance, the Respondent preferred the subject original application.

¶15

By the impugned order, after appraising the facts of the case, the learned Tribunal has rightly formed the opinion that the Respondent, who has had an unblemished career for about 38 years, could not be indefinitely denied vigilance clearance on account of pendency of a criminal case between the cousins.

¶16

Pertinently, in the criminal case, the Police after investigation submitted closure report. The trial Court however took cognizance, which has been stayed by the High Court. 6. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, this Court does not find it appropriate to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶17

The petition is dismissed. Pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶18

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J

¶19

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

¶20

APRIL 1, 2026 “SK”

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/04/2026 at 11:11:05

Union of India & Anr. v. Randhir Kumar Sinha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India & Anr. v. Randhir Kumar Sinha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukesh Kumar Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Bachan Singh Vs Consolidation Officer

Manas Kumar Dubey & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Anju Tanwar Vs Lawyers Chambers Allotment Committee & Ors.

Sharwan Kumar Vigmal Vs Gerneral Manager (Nw-Ii) (Appointing Authority) State Bank of India

Gautam Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Rajubhai Kanti Lal Patel Vs Union of India & Ors.

Gyan Chand Vs Delhi Cantonment Board and Ors.

Delhi Development Authority and Ors. Vs Rajinder Kumar

Union of India and Another Vs Vivek Agarwal and Another

Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors. Vs Neetu Kumari

Shri Savitur Prasad Vs Union of India

Union of India & Ors. Vs Padma Jaiswal IAS (AGMUT:2003)

Rajkumar Tulsawani Vs Union of India and Others