Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Harinder Singh Sidhu, J.
Sohan Lal - Appellant
Versus
Union of India and Ors. - Respondent
CWP No. 12501 of 2013 (O&M)
Decided On : 30-06-2015
Sealed Cover Procedure - Promotion - 14.9.1992 - The court discussed the applicability of the Sealed Cover Procedure in the context of the petitioner's promotion. It referred to the relevant paragraphs 2 and 7 of the Office Memorandum dated 14.9.1992 and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman (1991) 4 SCC 109. The court found that the decision of the DPC to keep the petitioner's case in the sealed cover cannot be sustained as none of the three circumstances mentioned in paragraph 2 of the O.M. 14.9.1992 was present to justify resort to the sealed cover procedure. The court also noted that the charge-sheet was issued six months after the DPC, and therefore, paragraph 7 would not be attracted.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee seeking promotion, challenged the decision of the authorities to keep his name in a sealed cover due to a communication from the vigilance department. The petitioner argued that the sealed cover procedure could only be adopted in specific circumstances, none of which existed at the time of consideration for his promotion by the DPC. The respondents contended that the decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner had been taken prior to the DPC, justifying the sealed cover procedure.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the decision of the DPC to keep the petitioner's case in the sealed cover cannot be sustained as none of the three circumstances mentioned in paragraph 2 of the O.M. 14.9.1992 was present to justify resort to the sealed cover procedure. The court also noted that the charge-sheet was issued six months after the DPC, and therefore, paragraph 7 would not be attracted.
Issues: The main issue was the applicability of the Sealed Cover Procedure in the context of the petitioner's promotion. The court had to determine whether the decision to keep the petitioner's case in the sealed cover was justified based on the circumstances at the time of the DPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the relevant paragraphs 2 and 7 of the Office Memorandum dated 14.9.1992 and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman (1991) 4 SCC 109 to establish that the decision of the DPC to keep the petitioner's case in the sealed cover cannot be sustained as none of the three circumstances mentioned in paragraph 2 of the O.M. 14.9.1992 was present to justify resort to the sealed cover procedure.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, directing that the sealed cover be opened and if the petitioner was found fit for promotion by the DPC, he be given promotion from the date his immediate junior was promoted. The petitioner would also be entitled to all consequential benefits.
1. The petitioner joined respondent No. 2 as Development Officer on 27.3.1987. He was promoted as Assistant Area Manager in 1992 and, thereafter as Area Manager in the year 1997, which post was subsequently designated as Deputy Manager. In 2001, he was promoted as Manager (Marketing) and was further promoted to the post of Senior Manager (Marketing) in the year 2005. In the year 2008, he was promoted as Chief Manager (Marketing). The next promotion, which is available to the petitioner as per the applicable Rules, is that of Deputy General Manager (Marketing), (hereinafter referred to as "DGM") The respondent authorities initiated the process of adjudging the suitability of the candidates for the post of DGM in the month of October, 2012. Selection for the said post is made on the basis of merit, which is adjudged by giving separate marks on the basis of Annual Confidential Reports, qualification, experience and performance at the interview before the Departmental Promotion Committee. A panel of 18 candidates was to be prepared for promotion to the post DGM as per the anticipated vacancies till 1.6.2013 and the selected candidates were to be promoted as per this panel, as and when a vacancy arose. As the petitioner was eligible and qualified for being considered for the post of DGM, he was called to appear before the DPC for consideration for the post of DGM on 14.10.2012. As per the Seniority List, the petitioner's name figures at No. 32 and the candidates upto Sr.No. 55 in the said list were within the zone of consideration.
2. The petitioner appeared before the DPC on 14.10.2012. But he was not promoted. On enquiry, he was informed that out of recommended panel of 18 candidates for promotion to the post of DGM, 17 had already been given promotion, whereas, the case of the petitioner had been kept in a sealed cover due to communication received from the Vigilance Department dated 12.10.2012, wherein, it had been mentioned that a vigilance case is contemplated against the petitioner.
3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the decision of the authorities for keeping his name in sealed cover in view of the communication from the vigilance department.
4. It is contended that in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, (1991) 4 SCC 109 and the instructions of the Department of Personnel & Training (DOPT) in the office memorandum dated 14.9.1992 (Annexure R-1), which have been reiterated by the office memorandum dated 25.10.2004 and the still subsequent memorandum dated 2.12.2012, sealed cover procedure can be adopted only in cases where on the date of the consideration of the case for promotion by the DPC the Government servant is under suspension or a charge-sheet has been issued and the disciplinary proceedings are pending; or prosecution for criminal charge is pending. It is urged that as on the relevant date of consideration of his case by the DPC, none of these three conditions existed, the action of the respondents in adopting the sealed cover procedure was illegal.
5. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents No. 2 to 5, it has been stated that the petitioner was ordered to be charge-sheeted by the competent authority on 28.12.2011, which is much prior to the meeting of DPC on 14.10.2012. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Kewal Kumar and others, (1993) 3 SCC 204 and Union of India and another vs. R.S. Sharma (2000)4 SCC 394 to contend that when decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings or criminal prosecution has been taken prior to the DPC, in that event also, the sealed cover procedure can be adopted. Further reliance has been placed on paragraph No. 7 of the office memorandum dated 14.9.1992, as per which, if any of the circumstances, mentioned in paragraph 2 of the said memorandum arise after the recommendation of the DPC, but before the actual promotion
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
