IMPORTANT POINT
Promotion – Sealed Cover Procedure – Disciplinary/criminal proceedings can be said to be initiated against employee only when a charge-memo is issued to employee in a disciplinary proceeding or a charge-sheet for a criminal prosecution is filed in competent Court – Sealed Cover Procedure is to be resorted to only after charge-memo/charge-sheet is issued.

JUDGMENT :

Mehta, J.

1. The instant appeal by special leave takes exception to the judgment dated 26th April, 2013 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition(C) No. 7960 of 2012 whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant herein i.e., the Union of India was dismissed and the order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi(hereinafter being referred to as ‘Tribunal’) was upheld, whereby the Tribunal allowed Original Application No. 3716 of 2011 filed by the respondent herein challenging the denial of promotional benefits to him.

2. The brief facts in a nutshell relevant and essential for the disposal of the instant appeal are noted hereinbelow.

3. The respondent was appointed as Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax on 16th December, 1987. He was granted due promotions to the post of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, and Additional Commissioner of Income Tax in December 1991, July 2001, and November 2001, respectively. On 31st December, 2001, an FIR was registered against the respondent for the offences punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 13(1) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, alleging inter alia that the respondent, while working as the Special Secretary(Finance), Government of Arunachal Pradesh acted in conspiracy with other officers and committed criminal misconduct by abusing his position as a public servant. A sanction dated 2nd June, 2006, was accorded by the CBDT (Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India) for the prosecution of the respondent in respect of the aforesaid allegations before the concerned Court.

4. Thereafter, on 22nd February, 2007, the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter being referred to as ‘DPC’) was convened to consider the promotion of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax to the post of Commissioner of Income Tax. Since the respondent had attained eligibility for promotion to the post of Commissioner of Income Tax, his case was also considered for promotion by the DPC. However, the vigilance certificate of the respondent was withheld and the recommendations of the DPC with regard to the promotion of the respondent were kept in a sealed cover on the basis that the ‘Prosecution for criminal charge’ was pending against him, and thus, he was deprived from being considered for promotion along with his batchmates.

5. Being aggrieved by the withholding of the vigilance clearance and adoption of the sealed cover procedure, the respondent filed Original Application No. 8 of 2011 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench. Original Application No. 8 of 2011 was allowed vide order dated 28th June, 2011 and the appellants were directed to consider the case of the respondent and pass a reasoned order within two months. In compliance of the said direction, the appellants considered the case of the respondent for promotion and vide communication dated 15th September, 2011, rejected the same holding that there was no justification for the opening of ‘Sealed Cover’ and considering the case of the respondent herein for promotion along with his batchmates.

6. The order dated 15th September, 2011 was challenged by the respondent before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi by preferring Original Application No. 3716 of 2011. The Tribunal vide order dated 7th March, 2012 allowed the aforesaid Original Application, quashed the communication dated 15th September, 2011, and directed the appellants herein to open the sealed cover adopted in the case of promotion of the respondent and give effect to the same, and if he was found fit for promotion, then to promote him and also award back wages with costs quantified at Rs. 10,000/-.

7. Challenging the order dated 7th March, 2012, the appellants herein filed Writ Petition(C) No. 7960 of 2012 before the learned Division Bench of High Court of Delhi, which stands rejected vide