Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 1947
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SOUMITRA SAIKIA, J.
Pranab KR. Das, S/o. Late Naba Kr. Das – Petitioner
Versus
Assam Co-Operative Apex Bank Ltd., Represented By The Managing Director And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No.4964 of 2023
Decided On : 04-11-2025
For the Petitioner:Mrs A.K. Choudhury, Mr M. Choudhury Advocate
For the Respondents: SC, The Assam Co Operative Apex Bank Ltd., Mr. D.J. Boro, Mr. J. Barman.
Promotion cannot be denied based on presumed departmental proceedings unless formal charges are framed, ensuring adherence to due process.
Headnote:(A) Constitutional law; service law - The principles related to promotion procedures and the sealed cover in the context of pending departmental proceedings are discussed. The court reiterated that without initiated departmental proceedings, a case cannot be kept under sealed cover, aligning with the principles established in Union of India and Ors Vs. K. V. Jankiraman (1991) 4 SCC 109 - The petitioner, an Assistant Branch Manager, was denied promotion based on a departmental proceeding not formally initiated, despite being placed in seniority for promotion. The Selection Committee ignored his candidacy under the sealed cover process. (Paras 4, 10, 14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner contested the non-consideration for promotion to a higher post on grounds of pending disciplinary action that was neither initiated nor substantiated by any charges framed against him. He sought a mandamus to consider his case based on his seniority.
Findings of Court:
The court found that there was no departmental action ongoing as of the relevant date and mandated consideration for promotion based on the correct application of the sealed cover principle.
Issues: Whether his case should have been kept in sealed cover without any charges formally initiated.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted that a sealed cover procedure should only apply if formal charges are framed, referencing precedents that assert the importance of a clear disciplinary process prior to promotion decisions.
Result: Writ petition allowed; the respondents were mandated to consider the petitioner's promotion with service benefits.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. representation of parties and procedural compliance. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. promotion process and petitioner's grievances. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. arguments regarding sealed cover procedure. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. court's analysis of sealed cover procedure. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. interpretation of relevant case law on promotion and disciplinary procedures. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 6. conclusion on lawful consideration for promotion. (Para 14) |
| 7. court's directive for review and compliance with the law. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT :
SOUMITRA SAIKIA, J.
Heard Mr. Dilip Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J.K. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Assam Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd. representing respondents No. 1, 2 and 3.
2. The private respondents are not represented, although by order dated 01.03.2024, this Court directed to take steps for service of notice on respondent Nos.4 to 8 and 10 to 21 by publishing the notice in two local daily newspapers having wide circulation in the State of Assam (one in English and one in vernacular). The respondent No.9 is shown to be represented by Mr. J. Barman, learned counsel. As per Office Note dated 02.05.2024, it appears that the respondents No. 4 to 8, 10 to 14, 17 and 19 to 21 were represented by the learned counsel. Subsequently, by Office Note dated 16.07.2024, it is reflected that respondent Nos.9, 16 and 18 were also represented by counsel. Accordingly, all the respondents were represented by the learned counsel.
3. The petitioner is serving as Assistant Branch Manager under the respondent bank. The petitioner was initially appointed as Probationary Officer in the respondent Bank on 16.12.2010. While the petitioner was serving in that capacity, the bank authorities proceeded to consider the officers similarly situated like the petitioner for promotion to the next higher Grade D. According to the petitioner, he was placed at a higher position in the seniority list which was published by the bank for the Grade of Assistant Manager/Assistant Branch Manager according to their date of birth. In the said list, the petitioner is placed in the third position. Thereafter, the Selection Committee proceeded to consider the cases of the petitioner and the private respondents. Subsequently, by order dated 05.07.2021, the private respondents were promoted to the next higher rank overlooking the claim of the petitioner.
4. By the present proceedings the impugned order dated 05.07.2021 the petitioner has assailed the promotion of the private respondents to the next higher post overlooking the claim of the petitioner. There are however, two orders passed on 05.07.2021 whereby, officers were promoted in two different sets and in none of the orders, the name of the petitioner figured. The petitioner represented before the authorities concerned but the same was not responded to. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondent authorities to consider his case for promoting him to the next higher post with all service benefits including seniority.
5. The respondent bank has contested the writ petition by filing an affidavit. The learned counsel for the bank submits that on the day when the Selection Committee meeting was conducted for promotion of the candidates including the petitioner, the petitioner and two other officers were not considered, in view of contemplated departmental proceedings and accordingly, their cases were kept under sealed cover. It is submitted that since the petitioner's case was kept under sealed cover, his case was not considered, the private respondents’ cases were considered and promotion orders accordingly were issued.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the date when the committee had evaluated the cases of the candidates including the petitioner, there was no departmental proceedings initiated nor was any charge sheet was issued to the respondent petitioner. Therefore,
