The main legal point established in the judgment is that the 'sealed cover procedure' should be followed only when a charge memo is served on the concerned official in case of a departmental proceeding or the charge-sheet is filed before the criminal court in case of a criminal prosecution. The court also emphasized the need for an unblemished record for promotion and the balance between employee interests and public interest.

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. The controversy involved in the present case relates to, what in service jurisprudence has come to be known as ‘sealed cover procedure’.

2. The ‘sealed cover procedure’ is adopted when an employee is due to be considered for promotion, increment etc. but departmental disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending against him and hence the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as the ‘DPC’) pertaining to the employee are kept in a sealed cover requiring the cover to be opened after the proceedings in question are over.

3. On January 30th, 1982, the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, issued an Office Memorandum on the subject of ‘sealed cover procedure’. As per the Memorandum, cases of Government servants: (i) who are under suspension or (ii) against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending or a decision has been taken by the competent authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings or (iii) against whom prosecution has been launched in a court of law or sanction for prosecution has been granted, are to be considered for purposes promotion by the DPC at the appropriate time but the recommendations of the DPC are to be kept in a sealed cover; to be opened after the conclusion of the disciplinary/court proceedings.

4. On January 12th, 1988, the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, issued another Office Memorandum on the subject. As per the said Memorandum, cases of officers (i) who are under suspension or (ii) in respect of whom disciplinary proceedings are pending or a decision has been taken to initiate disciplinary proceedings or (iii) in respect of whom prosecution for criminal charge is pending or sanction for prosecution has been granted or a decision has been taken to accord sanction for prosecution or (iv) against whom an investigation on serious allegations of corruption, bribery or similar grave misconduct is in progress either by the CBI or any other agency, departmental or otherwise are to be kept in a sealed cover.

5. On July 31st, 1991, the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, issued a third Office Memorandum on the subject as per which condition No.(iv) in the OM dated January 12th, 1988 i.e. ‘against whom an investigation on serious allegations of corruption, bribery or similar grave misconduct is in progress either by the CBI or any other agency, departmental or otherwise’ was deleted.

6. In the decision reported as (1991) 4 SCC 109 Union of India & Ors v K.V. Jankiraman & Ors a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court examined the legality of the Office Memorandum dated January 30th, 1982 and some other aspects connected thereto. Amongst others one question which had arisen before the Court was:, what is the date from which it can be said that disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending against an employee’? Which question was answered in the following words:-

“16. On the first question, viz., as to when for the purposes of sealed cover procedure the disciplinary/criminal proceeding can be said to have commenced, the Full Bench of the Tribunal has held that it is only when a charge-memo in a disciplinary proceedings or a charge-sheet in a criminal prosecution is issued to the employee that it can be said that the departmental proceedings/criminal prosecution is initiated against the employee. The sealed cover procedure is to be resorted only after the charge-memo/charge-sheet is issued. The pendency of preliminary investigation prior to that stage will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure. We are in agreement with the Tribunal on this point. The contention advanced by the appellant-authorities that when there are serious allegations and it takes time to collect evidence to prepare and issue charge-memo/charge-sheet, it would not be in the interest of the purity of administration to reward the employee with a promotion, increment e