Back
2025 Supreme(Raj) 1370
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, J.
Kuldeep Khatri - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17176 of 2022
Decided On : 22-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : C.S. Kotwani, Tushar Thanvi
For the Respondent: S.R. Paliwal
The mere pendency of a criminal case cannot justify withholding promotion; a charge-sheet must be issued for sealed cover procedures to apply.
Headnote:
(A) Circular dated 04.06.2008 - Sealed cover procedure - Promotion to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer - Petitioner, while serving as UDC, faced a criminal case; however, no charge-sheet was filed - Court held that mere pendency of a criminal case cannot justify withholding promotion - Clause 12 of the Circular mandates opening of sealed cover for promotion consideration. (Paras 4, 7, 10)
(B) Legal principles - The court emphasized that disciplinary proceedings must be initiated through a charge-sheet for sealed cover procedures to apply, referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India vs. K.V. Jankiraman. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was suspended due to a criminal case but was later reinstated. He became eligible for promotion, yet the sealed cover procedure was invoked due to the ongoing case. No charge-sheet had been served.
Findings of Court:
The court found no justification for withholding the promotion based solely on the criminal case's pendency and directed the respondents to open the sealed cover and declare the promotion result.
Issues: The main issues were whether the sealed cover procedure could be applied in the absence of a charge-sheet and the implications of the Circular dated 04.06.2008.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the sealed cover procedure is only applicable after a charge-sheet is issued, and the mere pendency of a criminal case does not suffice to deny promotion.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
ORDER :
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer that the sealed cover procedure adopted in the case of the petitioner for his promotion to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer may be opened and the petitioner may be extended all the service benefits due to him in accordance with the relevant rules.
3. Briefly noted the facts in the present writ petition are that the petitioner, while working as an Upper Division Clerk (UDC) in the respondent-Department, was proceeded against by the Anti- Corruption Bureau and an FIR being FIR No.46/2015 dated 25.03.2015 was lodged against him, initiating a criminal case. The investigation in the said criminal case was pending, and during its pendency, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court wherein, the Coordinate Bench of this Court granted an interim order in favour of the petitioner. Consequently, the prosecution sanction dated 16.04.2016 has been stayed and till date, no charge-sheet in the present case has been filed. The Department has also not served any charge sheet in pursuance to the disciplinary proceedings.Although the petitioner was suspended by the respondent-Department, however, the same has been revoked vide order dated 17.10.2019. In these circumstances, the petitioner continues to serve the respondent Department on the post of UDC. The petitioner became eligible for the promotion to the next higher post of Assistant Administrative Officer and, therefore, the case of the petitioner was considered by the respondent- Department. However, the proceedings of the DPC has been kept in sealed cover and the same is not being opened on account of the pendency of the criminal case against the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that mere pendency of the criminal case cannot be a ground for not opening the sealed cover containing the result of the consideration of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer. He further submits that neither any charge sheet is pending consideration before the criminal court, nor the Department has served any charge sheet for the disciplinary enquiry. He, therefore, submits that in these circumstances, Clause 12 of the Circular dated 04.06.2008 gains significance and the respondents are under an obligation to act in accordance with Clause 12 by opening the sealed cover containing the result of the consideration of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer.To support his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18074/2018, Sandeep Kumar Berar vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.decided on 31.03.2023, as well as the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.V. Jankiraman,(1991) 4 SCC 109. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be allowed and the respondents may be directed to open the sealed cover and declare the result of the petitioner for the promotion to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer and if, the petitioner is found suitable, then he may be promoted and may be granted all consequential service benefits for which he is entitled, in accordance with the applicable rules.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that since the petitioner has been proceeded in the criminal case and the same is pending consideration, the Department has rightly adopted the sealed cover procedure for his promotion to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer. He further submits that the respondents are proceeding and acting in consonance with the Circular dated 04.06.2008. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be dismissed.
6. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the relevant records of the case.
7. The undisputed facts in the present writ petition are that th
