Important Point
Recourse to ‘Sealed Cover’ procedure can be adopted in a case where departmental proceedings are pending on the date on which the delinquent officer is considered for promotion but an interim order that the employee may be considered and promoted to the next higher post irrespective of the departmental proceedings, contemplated or pending, cannot be passed by the Administrative Tribunal except in exceptional cases.

Headnote:Service Law-Promotion-Recourse to ‘Sealed Cover’ procedure-Can be resorted to if a charge sheet has been issued or the departmental proceedings are pending or the employee has been placed under suspension - The ‘Sealed Cover’ could be opened only in the case of complete exoneration of the employee from all charges - Whether the Tribunal could pass an interim order that the ‘Sealed Cover’ be opened and recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee may be given effect to even during the pendency of the departmental proceedings, subject to its final result?-(No)-This rule can be departed from only in exceptional cases depending upon the circumstances of a particular case-In the instant case charges against the respondent relate to financial irregularities-‘Sealed Cover Procedure’ was rightly adopted-Tribunal was not justified in passing the interim order.
       Held : In view of the Service Rule/ Executive instruction relating to “Sealed Cover Procedure”, Departmental Promotion Committee, in such a situation, would be well within its right to place its recommendations in the “Sealed Cover” so that the “Sealed Cover” may be opened on the conclusion of the Departmental proceedings and recommendations contained therein may be given effect to without delay. An interim order, therefore, that the “Sealed Cover” be opened and the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee for the promotion of the delinquent officer may be given effect to even during the pendency of the departmental proceedings, subject to its final result, is not usually or always or as a matter of course, granted. This rule can be departed from only in exceptional cases depending upon the circumstances of a particular case having regard to the fact that integrity, honesty and sincerity are the hall-mark of public services under the Union or the State and that efficiency of administration depend upon the effort made by persons holding public offices to serve the country and the Nation with devotion and an attitude of sacrifice without any iota or inkling of “self service”. (Para 14)
       It is true that the charge-sheet was issued on 5.2.96, i.e., a day before the Departmental Promotion Committee was to meet. The Departmental Promotion Committee met on 6.2.96 but actually considered the name of the respondent in its meeting held on 12.2.96. Whether the charge-sheet was deliberately issued to prompt the Departmental Promotion Committee to take recourse to the “Sealed Cover Procedure” is a question of fact which has yet to be decided by the Tribunal on merits on the basis of the evidence which might be led by the parties. That being so, it can hardly be made a basis for interim relief. (Para 16)
       Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. we are firmly of the view that the Tribunal was not justified in passing the impugned order that the “Sealed Cover” be opened and the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee be given effect to. The “Sealed Cover Procedure” was rightly adopted by the Departmental Promotion Committee and there was no reason to interfere with that Procedure. (Para 22)

Judgment

S. Saghir Ahmad, J.-Respondent No. 1 while working as Superintending Engineer (E & M) in the public Health Engineering Department was issued a charge-sheet on 16.11.94 which was challenged by him in O.A.No. 1219/94 in the Gwalior Bench of the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) on the ground that besides containing stale charges it was issued with the mala fide intention to forestall the consideration of his name for inclusion in the panel of candidates for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer (E & M). The claim petition was allowed by the Tribunal by its order dated 17.5.95 and the S.L.P. filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh. In this Court, was dismissed on 16.10.95 with the following Order :-

“Delay condoned.

While we agree that some of the observations made by the Tribunal are sweeping and not entirely correct in law, we are satisfied that the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is correct. We are not inclined to interfere in the matter, particularly in view of the fact that though the Lokayukta report was received in 1986, the charges were served only in 1994, i.e. after about eight years. In the meantime, the respondent had also been promoted in 1987. It is in view of these facts and circumstances that we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.”

2. Respondent No. 1, thereafter, filed another case (O.A. No. 876/95) before the Tribunal for the relief that the State Government may be directed to convene the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee for considering his name for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer and that the State Government may be restrained from starting any fresh departmental proceeding. This O.A. was disposed of finally by the Tribunal by its order dated 8.12.95 and the direction was issued to the appellant to hold the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee within six weeks. The further relief that no fresh departmental proceedings be initiated against him was refused by the Tribunal. On 31st of January, 1996, State Government filed an application before the Tribunal for extension of time for convening the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee but the Tribunal instead of granting extension, directed by its order dated 2.2.96, to produce the original records before it so that it may be found out as to why the convening of the Departmental Promotion Committee was being delayed. While the matter was pending before the Tribunal, a fresh charge-sheet was issued to respondent No. 1 on 5th of February, 1996. When the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee was held on 12.2.96, its recommendations concerning respondent No. 1 and 2 others were kept in the “Sealed Cover”. This procedure was adopted by the Departmental Promotion Committee because of the pendency of the departmental proceedings against Respondent No. 1 on the basis of the charge-sheet issued to him on 5.2.96.

3. The Tribunal which already had before it the application of the State Government for extension of time (M.A. 32/96), for convening the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee, passed an order on 14.2.96 restraining the State Government from promoting any person junior to respondent No. 1 to the post of Chief Engineer. A further order for status quo was passed by the Tribunal on 27.2.96.

4. Respondent No. 1, in the meantime, filed another O.A. No. 237/96) before the Tribunal on 11.3.96 with the prayer that the State Government may be directed to open the “Sealed Cover” containing the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee. This O.A. was clubbed with M.A. 32/96. The orders of the Tribunal, passed on 14.2.96 and 27.2.96, were challenged by the State Government in a Writ Petition No. 1402 of 1996 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which by its order dated 15.4.96 stayed the operation of the aforesaid order as also further proceedings in M.A. 32/96.

5. O.A. No. 237/96 was taken up by the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1998 Supreme(SC) 189

Cases Referred (4)