The sealed cover procedure can be applied only after a charge memo is served on the concerned official or the charge-sheet is filed before the criminal court, and the failure to conduct the review as per the Office Memorandum may impact the decision-making process.

JUDGMENT

Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. – Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 2nd January, 2015 passed in O.A. No. 116/2013[R] by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Ranchi, Patna Bench, Patna, the applicant is before this Court in the present writ petition. He had preferred Original Application for quashing of promotional order dated 30th January, 2012, where-under junior to the applicant i.e. respondent no. 5 was promoted to the post of Income Tax Officer depriving him of the benefit of promotion without any cogent reason.

3. Brief facts, bereft of unnecessary details, are being referred to hereinafter. The applicant/writ petitioner working as Inspector of Income Tax with effect from 14th December, 2001, was implicated in a disproportionate assets case by the C.B.I, in which charge-sheet was filed and sanction for prosecution was accorded by order dated 20th July, 2005. The order of cognizance dated 7th December, 2005 was quashed by this Court giving liberty to prosecution to get the investigation of the case conducted by the competent authority under section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and file a final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., 1973 After investigation of the case by the C.B.I through the competent authority, the issue of fresh sanction against the applicant came up. The sanction order was issued on 2nd March, 2011.

4. According to the applicant, he was eligible for promotion as on 1st January, 2011. However, the Departmental Promotion Committee held its meeting on 22nd August, 2011 only. It decided to keep the case of the applicant in a sealed cover on account of the sanction for prosecution. The respondent no. 5, who was junior to him at Serial No. 53 in the merit-list, was granted promotion by the order dated 30th January, 2012, which was impugned in the original application.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R.S. Mazumdar has submitted that inordinate delay in convening the meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee has resulted in denial of the promotion to the petitioner though as on 1st January, 2011, sanction for prosecution has not yet been granted against him. Learned counsel has also referred to the Office Memorandum dated 14th September, 1992 (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit of respondent) issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training, Government of Jharkhand. It is on the subject of promotion of Government Servants against whom disciplinary/court proceedings are pending or whose conduct is under investigation; procedure and guidelines to be followed. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that detailed guidelines have been provided under Paras 4 and 5 of the Office Memorandum, which stipulate that cases of Government Servants, whose suitability for promotion to a higher grade has been kept in a sealed cover, are required to be reviewed on the expiry of six months and the department/D.P.C. has to consider a number of aspects indicated at para5 thereof to come to a finding whether adhoc promotion can be given even during pendency of the disciplinary case/criminal prosecution against such Government servants. Though the petitioner has retired in the year 2016, but no such review has been held even once in his case. Therefore, the writ petitioner is aggrieved to approach this Court.

6. Learned counsel for official respondents has opposed the grounds urged by the petitioner. According to them, effective date, on which the case of such an employee/Government Servant can be considered fit for promotion, is the date on which the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting is held. If on the said date i.e. 26th August, 2011, the writ petitioner was suffering a sanction for prosecution in a C.B.I Case, he cannot claim promotion as a matter of right. His case has therefore been kept in a sealed cover in accordance with the office memorandum (Annexure-A) prescribed by M