ORDER

1. The appellants have impugned the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting the application for review filed by the appellants. The issue involved in the proceedings before the Tribunal related to the promotion of the respondent to a vacancy in selection grade in January b 1991.

2. The respondent was appointed as an Income Tax Officer in 1972. A charge-sheet was issued against him on 27-2-1989. The departmental enquiry was duly concluded and the result was that the respondent was found guilty and awarded the punishment of censure by an order dated 4-12-1991.

3. In the meanwhile, the vacancy in the selection grade became available. The respondent filed an application before the Tribunal contending that he was entitled to the vacancy and that a person who was junior to him had been so promoted by ignoring the seniority of the respondent. The application of the respondent was disposed of by an order dated 31-5-1993 in which the Tribunal recorded the fact that the departmental enquiry which had been pending at the time of the question of promotion to the vacancy arose, had resulted in the minor penalty of censure.

4. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellants had not adopted the sealed-cover procedure and as a result the Departmental Promotion Committee did not have an opportunity of giving its opinion on the question of the respondent's promotion. It accordingly directed that there should be a Review Departmental Promotion Committee to consider the respondent's promotion in the selection grade and if the Review Departmental Promotion Committee cleared the promotion, the respondent should be given the promotion from the date when his junior got the promotion.

5. The appellants had, in fact, followed the sealed-cover procedure in keeping with the office memorandum dated 12-1-1988 as far as the f respondent was concerned. This fact was brought to the notice of the Tribunal and it was prayed that since the sealed-cover procedure had been followed, the Tribunal's order dated 31-5-1993 should be modified by adding the following words after the operative portion of that order:

"If DPC had adopted sealed-cover procedure then no interference is called for." ;

6. The Tribunal allowed the appellants' application in the sense that it reviewed its earlier decision and took on record the fact that the sealed-cover procedure had been followed by the appellants. However, instead of adding on the sentence as prayed for by the appellants, it directed the appellants to open the sealed cover within a period of two months and if it was found that the respondent was fit to be promoted to the selection grade of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, he should have to be given the promotion to the said grade with effect from the date on which his junior got promotion. If after opening the sealed cover, the respondent was not found fit to be a promoted to the selection grade and the decision was communicated to the respondent, the respondent would be at liberty to challenge the order, if so advised.

7. According to the appellants, in terms of the office memorandum referred to hereinabove there was no question of opening the sealed cover as the disciplinary proceedings had not ended in a complete exoneration of the b respondent. Particular reference was made to Clause 3 including Clause 3.1 of the government memo which reads as follows:

"3. On the conclusion of the disciplinary case/criminal prosecution, or an investigation which results in dropping of allegation or complaints against the government servant, the sealed cover or covers shall be opened. In case the government servant is completely exonerated, the due date of his promotion will be determined with reference to the position assigned to him in the findings kept in the sealed cover/covers and with reference to the date of promotion of his next junior on the basis of such position. The government servant may be promoted. If necessary, by reverting the juniormost officiati