The sealed cover procedure for promotions is only applicable when formal charges are initiated, reaffirming the principles set in K.V. Jankiraman.

JUDGMENT :

NAVIN CHAWLA, J.

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners, challenging the Order dated 17.12.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as, the 'Tribunal') in O.A. No. 2835/2024, titled Sameer Dnyandev Wankhede vs. Union of India and Ors. /b>., allowing the said OA filed by the respondent herein with following directions:

“8. In light of the above, we allow this OA with following directions:

(a) Respondent nos. 1 to 3 are directed to open the sealed cover pertaining to applicant's promotion and in the event his name is recommended by UPSC, he shall be granted promotion to the post of Additional Commissioner w.e.f. 01 .01.2021.

(b) Respondent nos. 1 to 3 are further directed to place applicant's name at appropriate position in the final seniority list dated 28.03.2024 of Joint Commissioners of Customs and Indirect Taxes.

The aforesaid directions shall be complied within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”

2. The respondent had filed the above OA, contending therein that the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) held on 18.03.2024, which had been constituted for considering the case of the eligible ad- hoc officers for regular promotion to the post of Joint Commissioner, had kept the case of the respondent in a sealed cover contrary to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. K.V.Jankiraman & Ors., (1991) 4 SCC 109 . The learned Tribunal, by the Impugned Order, has accepted the said challenge of the respondent, and has passed the above quoted directions. Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners:

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that in the present case, an FIR has been registered by the CBI against the respondent on 11.05.2023. An ECIR bearing No.36/2023 has also been registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against the respondent under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short, 'PMLA'). He submits that a Draft Charge-sheet for invocation of major penalty was issued on 27.09.2022 and another one, on 27.12.2022. He submits that there was also a complaint received against the respondent that the respondent had submitted a forged Caste Certificate for obtaining employment. The same had also been referred to the CBI for investigation. He submits that a complaint dated 28.07.2023 was also received from the Departmental Legal Advisor, that the respondent had sought confidential information in relation to the pending investigation, and same is also being investigated further by the department.

4. He submits that in view of the above facts, the exception carved out by the Supreme Court in the Judgment of K.V.Jankiraman (supra), while dealing with Civil Appeal No.51-55/1990, was squarely applicable. He also placed reliance on the Judgments of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Kewal Kumar , (1993) 3 SCC 204 , and State of M.P. & Anr. v. Syed Naseem Zahir & Ors., 1993 Supp (2) SCC 225, to submit that as the FIR has been registered by the CBI on serious allegations, the decision of the DPC to resort to the sealed cover procedure was justified.

Submissions of the learned senior counsels for the respondent:

5. On the other hand, the learned senior counsels appearing for the respondent, on advance notice of this petition, submit that three limited circumstances in which the sealed cover procedure can be followed, as laid down by K.V.Jankiraman (supra) and adopted by the Government of India vide its Office Memorandums dated 14.09.1992 and 25.