ORDER :

1. Petitioner is working as Assistant Engineer in Public Works Department. On account of a complaint lodged by one Mr. Subash Hosamani claiming himself to be the President of Karnataka Pranta Raita Sangha, Taluk Samithi, Jewargi Taluk, Kalaburagi District, an enquiry came to be instituted against the petitioner by 2nd respondent by order dated 17.05.2017. Articles of charges came to be issued as per Annexure-B and a report came to be submitted under Section 12(3) on 20.02.2017 by the 2nd respondent. Based on the said report, 3rd respondent has passed an order referring the matter for enquiry and report vide proceedings dated 10.05.2017 Annexure-D.

2. During pendency of said enquiry, Departmental Promotion Committee (‘DPC’ for short) meeting came to be convened to fill up the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, Divisional-1 by promotion in accordance with Rule 32 of Karnataka Civil Service Rules and petitioner who was in the zone of consideration also came to be considered by the DPC in its meeting held on 20.04.2018 and it was opined by DPC that result of the proceedings of the DPC for promoting the petitioner be kept in a sealed cover vide proceedings dated 20.04.2018 Annexure-E. Pursuant to same, petitioner is said to have submitted a representation on 28.04.2018 Annexure-F to 3rd respondent which has not been considered. Hence, petitioner is before this Court for quashing of the enquiry proceedings pending on the file of 1st and 2nd respondent in so far as petitioner is concerned and has prayed for a writ of mandamus being issued to 3rd respondent to consider the representation dated 28.04.2018 Annexure-F.

3. I have heard arguments of Sri. H.M. Muralidhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing for 3rd respondent and Sri. Prashant S. Kumman, learned counsel appearing for Sri. S.S. Kumman for 1st and 2nd respondent.

4. It is the contention of Sri. H.M. Muralidhar, learned counsel for petitioner that merely on the basis of a frivolous complaint, charge sheet has been issued and even at threshold complaint deserves to be rejected and respondents ought to have closed the matter without proceeding with the enquiry and 1st respondent had in fact committed an error in ordering for enquiry being initiated against the petitioner. He would further submit that for no fault of petitioner, his promotion avenue has remained in quandary due to pendency of departmental proceedings. He would rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others vs. Chaman Lal Goyal, (1995) 2 SCC 570. Hence, he prays for a direction to 3rd respondent to open the sealed cover and declare the result of DPC proceedings and to declare petitioner is promoted to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, which he is entitled to. It is also contended that petitioner who is left with a very short service and has to retire without even a single promotion throughout his entire career. Hence, he prays for allowing the writ petition. Alternatively, he would also submit that if for any reason first prayer of the writ petition is not granted, at least 3rd respondent may be directed to consider the representation dated 28.04.2018 submitted by the petitioner.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for 1st respondent and Sri. Prashanth Kumman, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, respectively would submit that sealed cover policy is the policy which requires to be adopted when a employee is due for promotion is being considered to suspension when he is facing disciplinary proceedings which is the accepted policy in service jurisprudence and said procedure having been adopted in petitioner’s case also and hence they have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of records, it would clearly emerge therefrom that undisputedly petitioner is facing departmental