JUDGMENT

Thomas, J.-The grievance of the respondent - a Divisional Engineer in the Telecom Department - is that his promotion to the next tier in the cadre (senior time scale in the Indian Telecommunication Service Group "A") has been temporarily sealed on account of erroneously adhering to the "Sealed Cover Procedure". The Central Administrative Tribunal (for short `the Tribunal ) before which he approached for redressal of his grievance has upheld his contentions and directed the appellants to open the sealed cover and give effect to the recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). Union of India and the Chief General Manager of Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. have filed these appeals by special leave challenging the aforesaid direction issued by the Tribunal.

2. The background of passing the said order is the following :

Respondent was appointed in the Telecom Department during 1986. Hardly two years passed he got himself delved in the vortex of serious allegations of financial misdemeanors. One of the allegations is that he purchased very substandard materials for the Department at very high prices. An FIR was registered and the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short CBI ) took up the investigation. On 10.3.1988, he was suspended but within six months the suspension order was revoked. Nonetheless the CBI continued with investigation and on completion thereof they applied to the Government of India for according sanction to prosecute the respondent.

3. In the meanwhile the DPC considered the cases of other persons in the Department for promotion, but deferred the case of the respondent on account of the pendency of investigation of the said allegations against him. The respondent then moved the Tribunal and on 30.11.1990, the Tribunal passed an interim direction that the DPC should consider the case of the respondent for promotion in the event of considering the claims of any of his juniors attached to the same Department.

4. Pursuant thereto the DPC considered the case of the respondent on 3.4.1991 and adopted a decision. However, the DPC did not communicate the decision to any one and instead it put the recommendations in sealed cover as enjoined by the conditions specified in the "Sealed Cover Procedure" adopted by the Government of India. (vide Government of India, Deptt. of Per. & Trg., Office Memo No. 22011/2/86-Estt.(A) dated the 12th January, 1988).

5. At this stage, it is relevant to extract paragraph 2 of the said Office Memorandum. It reads thus :

"Cases where `Sealed Cover Procedure applicable :-At the time of consideration of the cases of Government servants for promotion, details of Government servants in the consideration zone for promotion falling under the following categories should be specifically brought to the notice of the Departmental Promotion Committee :

(i) Government servants under suspension;

(ii) Government servants in respect of whom disciplinary proceedings are pending or a decision has been taken to initiate disciplinary proceedings.

(iii) Government servants in respect of whom prosecution for a criminal charge is pending or sanction for prosecution has been issued or a decision has been taken to accord sanction for prosecution;

(iv) Government servants against whom an investigation on serious allegations of corruption, bribery or similar grave misconduct is in progress either by the CBI or any agency, departmental or otherwise."

6. It is not disputed before us that on 3.4.1991 when DPC decided to put the recommendations concerning respondent in the sealed cover, investigation into the case involved in the aforesaid FIR was pending. Hence the Sealed Cover Procedure was adopted as his case fell within the purview of clause (iv) of the aforesaid second paragraph. But on 31.7.1991 a new development took place. As per Office Memo No. 22011/1/91-Estt. (A) the restriction imposed as per clause (iv) was deleted fr