Sealed cover procedure for promotion cannot apply unless formal charges exist. Officers suspended but not charged are entitled to promotion based on DPC's recommendations.

JUDGMENT :

S. S. Mishra, J.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners assailing the order dated 07.04.2025 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, in O.A. No. 260/00077 of 2020, whereby the Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by the opposite party, Ashiquzzaman, an officer of the Indian Revenue Service (Customs & Central Excise, 2009 Batch), and directed the petitioners to act upon the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) held on 31.12.2018 and to promote the opposite party to the post of Joint Commissioner with effect from 23.01.2019, the date on which the suspension order of the opposite party was revoked pursuant to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court although all the juniors were promoted to the said post with effect from 01.01.2019 and also directed to give all the consequential benefits arising therefrom.

2. Mr. Alok Kumar Mohanty, learned Special Panel Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Jagamohan Pattanaik, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party, have been heard in extenso.

3. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the opposite party, Ashiquzzaman, aged 39 years, an officer of the Indian Revenue Service, was serving as Deputy Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Rourkela Commissionerate. He was placed under suspension vide order dated 25.10.2018 issued by the competent authority, in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. The said suspension was periodically reviewed and allowed to continue.

4. While the opposite party was under suspension, the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) convened on 31.12.2018 to consider the cases of eligible officers of the 2009 Batch for promotion to the post of Joint Commissioner. However, in terms of the DoP&T Office Memorandum dated 14.09.1992, since the applicant was under suspension at that time, the DPC decided to keep his case in sealed cover, while the names of his batchmates and juniors were recommended and they were promoted vide order dated 01.01.2019.

5. Subsequently, pursuant to an order of the Tribunal (as upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court), the suspension of the opposite party was revoked with effect from 22.07.2019 vide order dated 08.03.2021. Meanwhile, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered an FIR against him on 08.01.2020, and sanction for prosecution under Section 19 (1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was granted on 10.11.2023. Thereafter, a charge-sheet under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, was issued on 05.11.2024 to the opposite party.

6. The opposite party contended before the Tribunal that as on 31.12.2018, the date on which the DPC was convened, there was neither any criminal case instituted nor any departmental proceedings pending against him, and the only ground for applying the sealed cover procedure was his suspension. Once the suspension stood revoked on 22.07.2019, the sealed cover procedure, according to him, stood nullified, and the respondents were obliged to act upon the DPC’s recommendation and grant him promotion with effect from 01.01.2019, i.e., the date on which his batchmates were promoted.

7. The petitioners, on the other hand, opposed the claim contending that as the opposite party had been placed under suspension when the DPC was held, the sealed cover procedure was correctly applied in terms of DoP&T O.M. dated 14.09.1992. They further submitted that since criminal prosecution had been launched subsequently and departmental pro