The main legal point established in the judgment is that complete exoneration from charges is necessary before granting promotion, as per the provisions of the OM dated 14th September, 1992.

REKHA PALLI, J.

1. The Petitioner-Union of India assails the order dated 5th April, 2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No.3625/2015 wherein the Tribunal has allowed the said Original Application filed by the Respondent. Vide its impugned order, the Tribunal has directed the Petitioner to open the ‘Sealed cover’ containing the recommendations of the DPC held on 17th June, 2015 in respect of the Respondent and in case he is found fit, he has been directed to be promoted with all consequential benefits.

2. The Respondent, while working as a Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Department, was posted to the Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad w.e.f. 29th September, 2011. During this period, the Department of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) found some undeclared material, concealed behind cartons of papers in a consignment. Suspecting the Respondent’s involvement in the clearance of the offending goods, the DRI summoned him and thereafter vide its order dated 4th October, 2013, placed him under suspension. Respondent’s suspension was extended from time to time in accordance with Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules.

3. While the Respondent was under suspension, a Departmental Promotion Committee was convened on 17th June, 2015 for recommending eligible Deputy Commissioners, for promotion to the next higher grade of Joint Commissioner. As the Respondent was under suspension when the DPC met, recommendations qua him were placed in a sealed cover by the DPC. Soon thereafter on 30th June, 2015, Respondent’s juniors were promoted to the post of Joint Commissioner.

4. However, in the interregnum, as no charge-sheet had been issued to the Respondent, his suspension was revoked on 24th June, 2015 in view of the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Chaudhary Vs. Union of India (2015) 7 SCC 291. Immediately upon revocation of his suspension, the Respondent made representations seeking promotion to the post of Joint Commissioner. His plea was that as neither any charge-sheet had been issued to him, nor any criminal or departmental proceedings were pending against him, there was no justification in keeping his name in a sealed cover. The Respondent further relied upon DOPT’s OM dated 14th September, 1992 to contend that his promotion was not barred by any of the stipulations in the OM.

5. Despite the revocation of the Respondent’s suspension, the Petitioner did not open the ‘sealed cover’ adopted by the DPC qua him. In the aforesaid background, the Respondent preferred the Original Application before the Tribunal. In his OA, the Respondent sought a direction to the Petitioner to consider and promote him to the cadre of Joint Commissioner with effect from the date of promotion of his juniors. Placing reliance on the DOPT’s OM dated 14th September, 1992, the Respondent had contended that upon revocation of his suspension, the embargo on his promotion no longer remained, as neither any charge-sheet had been issued to him, nor any criminal proceedings were pending against him.

6. The Petitioner filed its counter-reply to the original application contending therein that as per DOPT’s instructions contained in OM dated 14th September, 1992, the sealed cover could be opened only in case of culmination of disciplinary proceedings into exoneration/dropping of charges, which situation had not yet arisen in the present case. In its counter affidavit, the Petitioner also pointed out that though the Respondent’s suspension had been revoked, he was still not clear from vigilance angle and there were serious charges against him. It was also pointed out that a reference had been made by the department to the CVC on 30th September, 2015 recommending RDA major, meaning thereby that charges against the Respondent, were of serious nature warranting major penalty proceedings against the Respondent herein.

7. The Tribunal vide its impugned order, has granted relief to the Respondent by dir