The Sealed Cover Procedure can be adopted even before the issuance of a charge memo or chargesheet, provided that the decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings or criminal prosecution had been taken prior to the meeting of the D.P.C.

( 1 ) THE petitioner was directly recruited by the Management of the first respondent-Bank on 13/03/1978 in Junior Management Grade-I cadre. After completion of two years training for the direct recruit Junior Officer, the petitioner was drafted as Technical Officer and he was posted as Technical Officer at Hyderabad Main Branch. Later the petitioner was promoted to Middle Management Grade Scale (MMGS)-II on 5/08/1983. At present the petitioner is working as Technical Officer in Sultan Bazaar Branch of the respondent Bank in the City of Hyderabad.

( 2 ) THE petitioner came under zone of consideration for promotion from M. M. G. S.-II to M. M. G. S.-III during the year 1993. Accordingly the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short d. P. C. ) constituted by the bank for screening the candidates, interviewed the petitioner on 18/09/1993 at Vijayawada for consideration his case for promotion from M. M. G. S. II to M. M. G. S. III. In the list of successful candidates selected for promotion from M. M. G. S. III released by the Management of the Bank on 31/12/1993 the name of the petitioner finds a place at S. No. 45. 83 officers are found suitable for promotion from M. M. G. S. II to M. M. G. S. III. In the circular issued by the second respondent-General Manager (Personnel Department) dated 31/12/1993 it is stated that the individual orders of promotion together with the place of posting in accordance with the guidelines (2) (a) and (b) or Regulation 17 of the Andhra Bank (Officers) Service Regulations 1982 (for short the Regulations ) as applicable and fitment of salary etc. , will be communicated to the silicate officers in due course. It is complained by the petitioner that the Management of the first respondent-Bank has given monetary benefit in the higher scale i. e. M. M. G. S. III of some of the officers whose names are shown below the name of the petitioner in the select list and certain other officers whose names are shown below the name of the petitioner in the select list are also promoted and the petitioner is not yet promoted for the undisclosed reasons. In these Circumstances, the writ petitioner filed this writ petition in this Court on 30/06/1994 under Article 266 of the Constitution seeking a declaration that the action of the respondent-Management in not promoting the petitioner to M. M. G. S. III is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution. The petitioner has further sought a consequential direction to the Management of respondent to promote him from M. M. G. S. II to M. M. G. S. III with all monetary benefits from the date when his immediate juniors were promoted as per the select list issued by the second respondent dated 31/12/1993.

( 3 ) THIS Court on 5/07/1994 issued rule list and on the same day in W. P. M. P. No. 14420 of 1994 filed by the petitioner made an exparte interim order directing the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner for grant of monetary benefits with effect from 25/04/1994 when his juniors were extended the said benefit. Further this Court on the same day in another W. P. M. P. No. 21753/94 filed by the petitioner made an interim order directing the Management of the respondent-Bank to open the sealed cover said to have been adopted in the case of the petitioner and act according to the proceedings contained in the said sealed cover for promotion of the petitioner of the petitioner from M. M. G. S. II to M. M. G. S. III. On service of notice the respondent have filed W. V. M. P. No. 2679/94 seeking vacation of the ex parte interim order granted by this Court on 5/10/1994 in W. P. M. P. No. 2173/94. When these Interlocutory matters were posted before the Court for orders, the main writ petition itself was taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

( 4 ) SRI M. V. K. Viswanatham, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Manag