IMPORTANT POINT
The sealed cover procedure in service promotions can only be applied when a formal chargesheet has been issued against the employee; mere pendency of inquiries is not sufficient.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

SANDEEP V.MARNE, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, petition is taken up for final hearing.

2. 'Sealed Cover Procedure' has by now become a familiar term in service jurisprudence. It essentially refers to deferring of action on recommendations of a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) till the officer concerned is cleared in departmental/judicial proceedings. In the meantime, secrecy is to be maintained in respect of those recommendations by keeping them in a 'sealed envelope'. Only in the event of the officer being exonerated/acquitted in departmental/ criminal proceedings, the sealed envelope is to be opened to find out whether the DPC had recommended his/her promotion. If recommended, he/she earns the promotion which was withheld during pendency of proceedings. This sealed cover procedure emanated out of instructions issued by the Government of India, to which, we have made a reference in our judgment. However, the exact eventualities in which as well as the correct time at which this 'sealed cover procedure' can be adopted has been a subject matter of debate in various decisions of the Apex Court. This is yet another case which raises this issue about the timing of adoption of sealed cover procedure. Whether it can be adopted only after actual initiation of disciplinary proceedings or mere proposal to initiate the same is sufficient to resort to the same, is the issue involved in the present petition.

3. The issue arises in the light of Petitioner's claim for promotion to the post of Deputy Manager (Scale-III) in The United India Insurance Company Ltd.

4. Before we procced to refer to the various instructions issued by the Government of India on sealed cover procedure as well as the judgments on the issue, a brief factual narration as a prologue to our judgment would be necessary. Petitioner was appointed in the Respondent-Insurance Company on the post of Administrative Officer (Scale-I) on August 8, 2011. He secured a fast track promotion to the post of Assistant Manager (Scale-II) in the year 2015 but could not join the promotional post offered to him at Ahmedabad and continued working on the lower post Administrative Officer (Scale-I) in corporate office at Mumbai. On account of his refusal to join the promotional post at Ahmedabad in the year 2015, he was denied opportunity to appear for promotional exam in the year 2016. He was later promoted to the post of Assistant Manager (Scale-II) in the year 2017.

5. On May 24, 2021, one Mr. Khushal Singh working on the post of Assistant Manager (Scale-II), Petitioner's senior in the same scale, was placed under suspension in connection with some suspicious transactions. An FIR was lodged on May 29, 2021 against unknown persons in which Mr. Khushal Singh and his wife came to be arrested. Petitioner was summoned for enquiry and his statement was recorded during investigations. However, Petitioner is not made an accused in that case.

6. A selection was convened for effecting promotions to the post of Deputy Manager (Scale-III) vide notice dated July 21, 2021. Petitioner was fulfilling the eligibility criteria for such promotion and applied in pursuance of the notice. He participated in the selection process comprising of an online examination. He claims to have secured 3rd ranking in Mumbai and 47th rank all over India. However in the list of promoted officers published on September 30, 2021, Petitioner's name was missing. His juniors as well as officers securing lesser marks were however promoted. Petitioner has accordingly filed the present petition seeking promotion to the post of Deputy Manager (Scale-III).

7. During pendency of the present petition, Memorandum of Chargesheet dated April 19, 2023 is issued to Petitioner levelling charges relating to grant of approval to 173 transactions amounting to Rs.52.15 crores effected by Khushal Singh.

8. An Affidavit-in-reply has been filed on behalf of Respondent-Insurance Company, inte