1. Departmental proceedings for misconduct — Promotion recommendations kept in sealed cover — Imposition of minor penalty of censure — Dispute over opening sealed cover for promotion. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 27
Supreme Court Of India
Decided On : (January 4, 1996)
State of Madhya Pradesh
Versus
I. A. QURESHI
Important Points
A sealed cover containing DPC recommendations is opened only upon full exoneration. If a minor penalty, including 'censure,' is imposed, the sealed cover cannot be opened for retrospective promotion; the employee may only be considered for promotion on a prospective basis after the proceedings conclude.
Subject
Administrative Law - Government Employment
Act Referred
Headnote
Public Works Department - Recommendations Of DPC - Respondent is employed as Executive Engineer in Public Works Department of government of Madhya Pradesh - Departmental proceedings were initiated against him on charges of misconduct - During pendency of those proceedings - Departmental Promotion Committee considered case of respondent for promotion to higher post of Superintending Engineer - In view of pendency of departmental proceedings against respondent, recommendations of DPC as regards respondent were placed in a sealed cover - In departmental proceedings, minor penalty of censure was imposed on respondent - Thereafter, respondent filed an application before tribunal wherein he sought relief that sealed cover containing recommendations of DPC should be opened and recommendations of DPC be given effect to - Said application of respondent has been allowed by tribunal by impugned order –Held, Grievance of respondent is that even after conclusion of departmental proceedings, no steps have been taken to hold a fresh DPC for considering case of respondent for promotion - That is a matter for appellants to consider - If there was any vacancy on date of conclusion of departmental proceedings against respondent, he should beconsidered for promotion against such vacancy by holding a DPC for that purpose – Appeal Dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the penalty of censure constitutes a punishment disentitling the employee from the opening of the sealed cover and retrospective promotion. (Para 4 , 6 , 7 )
3. Censure is a minor penalty under the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, and cannot be equated with a mere warning. (Para 8 )
4. Sealed cover recommendations are opened only upon full exoneration; imposition of a minor penalty precludes opening the sealed cover for retrospective promotion. (Para 5 , 8 )
5. Appeal allowed — Tribunal judgment set aside — Petition for opening the sealed cover dismissed. (Para 10 )
6. When can a sealed cover containing DPC recommendations be opened?
A sealed cover containing the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee is opened only when the delinquent officer has been fully exonerated by the departmental enquiry. (Para 5 )
7. Does the imposition of a minor penalty like censure allow for the opening of a sealed cover?
No. If a delinquent officer is punished in departmental proceedings, even with a minor penalty, the sealed cover is not to be opened, and promotion cannot be granted based on those recommendations. (Para 5 , 8 )
8. Is censure considered a punishment or a mere warning in the context of government service?
Censure is classified as one of the minor penalties that can be imposed on a government servant under the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, and cannot be equated with a mere warning. (Para 8 )
9. Can an employee awarded a minor penalty be considered for promotion?
Yes, but only on a prospective basis from a date after the conclusion of the departmental proceedings, typically through a subsequent DPC, rather than through the opening of a sealed cover. (Para 8 , 9 )
( 1 ) SPECIAL leave granted.
( 2 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24/2/1993, passed by the M. P. State Administrative tribunal, Jabalpur bench, in OA No. 2402 of 1992 (hereinafter referred to as "the tribunal" ).
( 3 ) THE respondent is employed as Executive Engineer in the Public Works Department of the government of Madhya Pradesh. Departmental proceedings were initiated against him on charges of misconduct. During the pendency of those proceedings. Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as "the DPC") considered the case of the respondent for promotion to the higher post of Superintending Engineer. In view of the pendency of departmental proceedings against the respondent, the recommendations of the DPC as regards the respondent were placed in a sealed cover. In the departmental proceedings, minor penalty of censure was imposed on the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent filed an application (OA No. 2402 of 1992 before the tribunal wherein he sought the relief that the sealed cover containing the recommendations of the DPC should be opened and the recommendations of the DPC be given effect to. The said application of the respondent has been allowed by the tribunal by the impugned order. The tribunal has directed that the sealed cover be opened and that appropriate orders be issued in accordance with the recommendations of the DPC and the question whether the respondent should be promoted retrospectively or otherwise should be considered on the basis of the recommendations of the DPC.
( 4 ) SHRI S. K. Agnihotri, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, has submitted that the tribunal was in error indirecting opening of the sealed cover in the facts of this case. In this context, Shri Agnihotri has invited our attention to the circular dated 2/5/1990 which contains the guidelines in the matter of giving effect to the minor punishment of censure about the promotion of government servants. A translated version of the said circular has been filed on behalf of the appellants. Clauses (i) and (;i) of the said circular are reproduced hereunder:" (I) Vide letter dated 31/1/1964, this has been directed that in the cases of those officers against whom either departmental enquiry is pending or who have been suspended on the recommendations of the DPC should be kept in the sealed cover and that should be opened only when the delinquent officer has been fully exonerated by the departmental enquiry otherwise it should not be opened. The meaning of this is very clear that if the delinquent employee has been punished by the departmental enquiry then his case which has been kept in the sealed cover will not be opened and he will not be granted promotion on the basis of the recommendations of the DPC which is kept in the sealed cover. Hence once the punishment has been granted, the delinquent employee is not entitled for the promotion irrespective of the nature of the punishment. (ii) In the letter dated 27/2/1975, this direction has been explained in more detail. In this letter, it has been explained that till that time the delinquent officer who has been punished by the departmental enquiry will not be considered or will not be considered eligible for promotion to the next post. Regarding those government employees who have been awarded minor punishment, it would not be proper to delete their names from the subsequent DPC on this ground that they have been punished. The cases of such government employees who have been awarded minor penalties should be kept before the subsequent DPC for promotion. It means that the minor penalty will not disentitle the delinquent officer from promotion on the basis of the recommendation of the subsequent DPC. If on the basis of the previous documents and valuation of the DPC, it is necessary to promote any officer who has been awarded with minor punishment then in that case it would be proper to promote the said officer with prospective effect and the promotio
