JUDGMENT

SAWANT, J.:—Civil Appeals Nos. 3019/ 87, 3020/87 and 3016/88 arise out of the judgment dated March 2-1987 delivered by the Full Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referrred to as the Tribunal).

Civil Appeals Nos. 3018/87 and 3021/87 arise out of the judgments dated April 24, , 87 and April 1, 1987 respectively of the Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench.

Civil Appeals Nos. 3083/90 and 4379/90 arise out of the judgments dated March 2, 1989 and September 15, 1989 of the Madras and Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal respectively and which are based on the aforesaid decision of the Full Bench of the Tribunal.

Civil Appeals Nos. 51-55 of 1990 arise out of the decision dated July 12, 1989 of the Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench.

Special Leave Petition (C) No. 1094 of 1990 arises out of the decision dated June 29, 1989 of the Tribunal, Bombay Bench.

Special Leave Petition (C) No. 2344 of 1990 arises out of the decision dated 18th September, 1989 given by the Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi.

Special Leave Petition 1 (C) No. 11680 of 1991 arises out of the decision dated January 25, 1991 given by the Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi.

2. The common questions involved in all these matters relate to what in service jurisprudence has come to be known as "sealed cover procedure". Concisely stated, the questions are,.-(1) What is the date from which it can be said that disciplinary/ criminal proceedings are pending against an employee? (2) What is the course to be adopted when the employee is held guilty in such proceedings if the guilt merits punishment other than that of dismissal? (3) To what benefits an employee who is completely or partially exonerated is entitled to and from which date? The "sealed cover procedure" is adopted when an employee is due for promotion, increment etc. but disciplinary/ criminal proceedings are pending against him at the relevant time and hence the findings of his entitlement to the benefit are kept in a sealed cover to be opened after the proceedings in question are over. Hence, the relevance and importance of the questions.

3. The Union of India and the other appellant-authorities have by these appeals challenged the findings recorded by she different Benches of the Tribunal in reply to one or the other or all the aforesaid three questions, in the decisions impugned therein. While recording its findings, the Full Bench of the Tribunal has also struck down two provisions of the Central Government Memorandum of 30th January, 1982 on the subject. We may, therefore, first refer to the said memorandum.

4. The Government of India (Department of Personnel and Training) issued an Office Memorandum No.22011/1/79. Estt.(A) dated January 30, 1982 on the subject of promotion of officers in whose cases "the sealed cover procedure" had been followed but against whom disciplinary/Court proceedings were pending for a long time. The Memorandum stated that according to the existing instructions, cases of officers (a) who are under suspension or (b) against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending or a decision has been taken by the competent disciplinary authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings or, (c) against whom prosecution has been launched in a Court of law or sanction for prosecution has been issued, are considered for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as the DPC) at the appropriate time but the findings of the Committee are kept in a sealed cover to be opened after the conclusion of the disciplinary/Court proceedings. While the findings are kept in the sealed cover, the vacancy which might have gone to the officer concerned is filled only on an officiating basis. If on the conclusion of the departmental/ Court proceedings, the officer concerned is completely exonerated, and where he is under suspension it is also held that the suspension was wholly unjustified, the sealed cover is opened and the recommendations of the DPC are acted upon. If the officer could