IMPORTANT POINT
Promotion – Sealed Cover Procedure cannot be adopted in absence of any disciplinary enquiry against concerned employee.

JUDGMENT :

Rastogi, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant, a member of the Indian Forest Services (IFS), approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, with the grievance that his candidature was considered for promotion to the post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests in the DPC held on 12th May, 2020 and the officer junior to him was promoted pursuant to the recommendations made by Order dated 4th September, 2020, but without any cause or justification, his candidature was kept in a sealed cover and mandamus was sought by him to direct the authorities of the State to open the sealed cover which was adopted by the DPC held on 12th May, 2020 as illegal and pass further orders in accordance with law.

3. The Central Administrative Tribunal, after examining the complaint of the appellant, arrived at the conclusion that in the absence of any departmental enquiry instituted/pending under the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules 1969”), the authorities were not justified in keeping the candidature in a sealed cover and accordingly under its order dated 13th January, 2022, directed the respondents to open the sealed cover and give effect to the recommendations made by the DPC held on 12th May, 2020 with all consequential benefits.

4. That order of the Tribunal came to be challenged before the High Court by the respondents by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and order of the Tribunal came to be set aside on the premise that the show cause notice dated 22nd April, 2016 which has been challenged by the appellant before the Tribunal is pending in OA No.387 of 2019 and because of interim order passed by the Tribunal on 11th October, 2019, followed with later orders, departmental enquiry under the Scheme of Rules 1969 could not have been initiated and thus delay in initiating the departmental enquiry could not be attributed to the respondents and accordingly while setting aside the order of the Tribunal dated 13th January, 2022, directed the Tribunal to decide OA No.387 of 2019 and OA No.76 of 2021 analogous in accordance with law under the orders impugned dated 28th April, 2022. The review petition against the aforesaid order also came to be dismissed by the High Court by its order dated 8th July, 2022, which is the subject matter of challenge in appeals before us.

5. The appellant is an IFS Officer of 1987 Batch. On an alleged complaint made by some timber merchant, the preliminary enquiry committee enquired into the complaint and submitted its report on 17th April, 2016 and accordingly, based on the observations made, a show cause notice dated 22nd April, 2016 was served upon the appellant calling for his written explanation failing which proceedings under the Rules 1969 will be initiated against him. The extract of the show cause notice dated 22nd April, 2016 is reproduced hereunder:

“6. Therefore, you Shri Ajeet Shrivastava (IFS) may show cause within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this letter that why not you may be punished while initiating proceedings under provisions provided under All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 against you in accordance with law rules provided under Rule 3(1) and 3(2A) of All India Services (Conduct) Rules 1968 for conduct adverse act against the expectation and giving introduction of indiscipline against the conduct expected from you being a member of IFS in connection with above allegations?”

6. The appellant submitted his detailed response dated 24th May, 2016, but no action was taken thereafter and the fact is that departmental enquiry for minor penalties under Rule 10 or major penalties under Rule 8 of the Rules 1969 admittedly has not been initiated against the appellant so far.

7. That earlier, the DPC met for the purpose of promotion to the post of Additional Principal Chief