Devan Ramachandran, J.

1. “Sealed Cover Proceeding” in service jurisprudence is now an accepted procedure whereby, in the circumstances when an employee's conduct is a matter in investigation or inquiry and thus being under a cloud, the suitability of such persons for promotion is still assessed by the competent Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) along with other eligible candidates, without taking into account the subject of inquiry or the allegations pending in investigation against him, but the recommendations of the DPC then being placed in sealed cover, to be opened only after the conclusion of the inquiry or investigative proceedings; and if he is exonerated of all charges made against him, to be granted promotion, if otherwise found eligible by the Committee, with effect from the date on which his immediate juniors was promoted.

2. The object of this method is that since the inquiry or investigation proceedings against an employee may consume time to conclude, at the end of which he may be found not at fault or guilt, his interests will require to be safeguarded in the matter of promotion, which was denied to him solely on account of the proceedings pending against him.

3. Called in issue in this original petition is not the sealed cover proceedings per se, but whether an officer, who stands exonerated of all charges and whose promotional recommendation was made favourably by the DPC earlier, would be entitled to seek promotion retrospectively from the date on which the vacancy arose. This question presents because of the position adopted by the competent authorities which appear to be that an officer can claim no such retrospective promotion, even if there had been a vacancy at the time when the DPC had considered his suitability, unless a junior of his had been so promoted.

4. This stand of the authorities was challenged by the first respondent herein, in whose case the sealed cover method was adopted by the DPC, before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which found favour with him and issued the order impugned in this original petition.

5. The petitioners herein, who are the State of Kerala and two Principal Secretaries to Government, question the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No. 483/2008 dated 17.09.2009, whereby the learned Tribunal has directed that the first respondent herein, who was the applicant, be afforded retrospective promotion to the cadre of Chief Conservator of Forests with effect from 08.05.20016.

6. A conspectus of the facts involved would show that the first respondent entered service in the year 1983 and that he was working as Conservator of Forests ever since 1996. While so functioning, he was served with Annexure A1 charge sheet in June 1999, wherein certain allegations were made that he had permitted illegal acts of encroachment into the forest area. We do not propose to say anything in detail regarding this because these charges are yet to be proved against the first respondent. Suffice to say that after such charge memo was given, it appears that an enquiry was initiated against him, which led to a report by the Enquiry Officer dated 01.12.2005.

7. The first respondent has a specific case that a copy of this enquiry report was never given to him but while so proceedings for promotion to the cadre of Chief Conservator of Forests were initiated by the competent authorities. The pleadings would show that as early as in 2006, the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) met and started deliberations, but since the first respondent was involved in an enquiry proceeding, they adopted the sealed cover method with respect to him, as is mandated by the relevant guidelines. A copy of the guidelines relating to the promotion under the Indian Forest Service, which also contains the procedure for adopting the 'Sealed Cover Method', has been placed on record as Annexure A2 along with the original application.

8. As per Annexure A2 guidelines applicable to the case of officers, ag