IMPORTANT POINT
Criminal charge would be treated as pending in case of criminal proceedings on the date on which complaint or a report of police officer on which Magistrate takes cognizance, is made.

JUDGMENT

A.K. SIKRI, J.

In these appeals, challenge is laid by the appellant to the judgment dated 05.05.2014 of the High Court vide which writ petition of the respondent/State of Punjab is allowed and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has been set aside. The appellant herein had filed Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 before the Chandigarh Bench of the CAT for certain reliefs. The result of the Departmental Promotional Committee (DPC), after considering the case of the appellant for promotion, has been kept in a sealed cover by the DPC. Main relief sought for by the appellant was for opening of the sealed cover and giving effect thereto, with other consequential reliefs. The Tribunal had allowed the OA of the appellant thereby granting the said prayer. The High Court has, vide impugned judgment, reversed the order of the CAT.

2. It may be stated at this stage that the appellant is facing criminal prosecution under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'PC Act'). The issue, therefore, resolves around these criminal proceedings, namely, whether that could form the basis of keeping the result of the DPC in sealed cover. According to the appellant, having regard to the guidelines for resorting to the sealed cover procedure, stage was not ripe for this purpose as, as on the date on which the DPC was held, there was neither any chargesheet against the appellant nor any charges framed in the criminal case. The respondents claimed otherwise as, according to them, matter had already been entrusted to CBI for carrying out the investigation into the allegations of acts of corruption on the part of the appellant and even the investigation was complete and report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) had been submitted by the CBI to the competent court. Since the report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. was filed before the first meeting of the DPC which was held, it was argued that the sealed cover procedure had been rightly adopted.

3. Few facts which are relevant in order to appreciate the rival contentions and decide the issue need a mention at this stage. We, therefore, proceed to take note of those facts.

4. The appellant joined Indian Forest Service in the year 1985 and after undergoing the requisite training, he was allocated to Punjab cadre. He was given senior scale on 01.04.1989 and was promoted to the rank of Conservator of Forests vide order dated 15.03.2001, but from an anterior date. While working in that capacity, the appellant was directed to hold an inquiry into the running of Golf Course in reserved forest area, which was being run by Forest Hill Resort whose owner was one Lt. Col. (Retd.) B.S. Sandhu. The appellant conducted the said inquiry, namely, whether it was a forest land or not and on other issues which were referred to him.

5. In a public interest litigation bearing CWP No. 1134 of 2004 titled 'Court on its own motion v. Col. B.S. Sandhu and others', the High Court of Punjab and Haryana passed an order for demolition of the said Golf Course after finding that it was constructed in the reserved forest area. At the same time, the matter was also entrusted to the CBI with a direction to fix accountability. The High Court had adversely commented upon the conduct of the appellant as well observing that while inquiring into the matter which was entrusted to him, he had submitted two dramatically opposed reports inasmuch as in the first report, the wrong-doers were indicted, whereas in the second report, the appellant had exonerated them. In pursuance of these directions, FIR was lodged by the CBI on 07.04.2006 in which the appellant was also arrayed. The CBI conducted the investigation and as per its report, certain Forest Officers and one I.A.S. Officer entered into a criminal conspiracy with Lt. Col. (Retd.) B.S. Sandhu and his associate Rajiv Bajaj thereby causing undue favour to Sandhu who, takin