Pending departmental inquiries necessitate sealed cover procedures for promotion during DPC considerations, prohibiting implementation of recommendations until exoneration occurs.

ORDER :

1. The present appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is preferred by the appellants/State (hereinafter referred as “appellant”) being crestfallen by the order dated 12.07.2023 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.5271 of 2012, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent/ Kamlesh Narain Sharma (petitioner therein) has been allowed.

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that respondent (petitioner in the writ petition) was working as In-charge Chief Municipal Officer at Ganj Basoda, District Vidisha (M.P.) and was senior Revenue Inspector of Grade “A” (Ka). For promotion of Chief Municipal Officer, Grade ''B'', the department prepared a Fit List on the basis of gradation list showing position as on 01.04.2007 and name of respondent was placed at S.No.58 in the gradation list. The appellants/State fixed the date of DPC as 17.07.2009 and subsequently, the said date was extended and fixed as 09.11.2009, 16.12.2009 and thereafter, 08.03.2010. Lastly, the date was fixed for 29.03.2010. The requisite information of the employees, who are under the zone of consideration were placed before the DPC and in the said list, name of the respondent was placed at S.No.15. From perusal of the said list, it is reflected that three charge-sheets were issued against the respondent; one on 30.09.2010 and other two on 21.10.2009.

3. In the DPC held on 29.03.2010, the criteria for promotion was seniority-cum-merit and the ACRs for 05 years w.e.f. 2003-04 to 2007-08 were placed for consideration for promotion. After consideration of the case of respondent, the recommendations/comments of DPC were placed in a sealed envelope. The aforesaid action of the appellants/ State was in pursuance to Circular dated 11.09.2007. From the year 2003-04 to 2007-08, no departmental enquiry was pending or contemplated against the respondent except for one enquiry of Lokayukt Organization, which was registered in the year 1999 and the said enquiry was closed on 29.05.2009. On perusal of the list, it appears that all three charge-sheets have been issued against the respondent in the year 2009, and no charge-sheet has been issued against the respondent during the period which was under consideration for his promotion i.e. 2003-04 to 2007-08. However, the petitioner has not been given promotion looking to the departmental enquiry pending against him.

4. Thereafter, petitioner approached this Court by way of filing W.P. No.5271/2012, which was allowed vide order dated 12.7.2023 with the following directions:

“17. Thus, this Court finds that the order impugned dated 10.5.2012 is per se illegal and accordingly, it is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to open the sealed envelope of the recommendations/comments of the DPC held on 29.03.2010 forthwith.
18. If the recommendations/comments of the DPC are in favour of the petitioner then consequential relief of notional promotion, re-fixation of pay/pension and other benefits be extended to the petitioner.
19. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the present petition is allowed and disposed off.”

5. Being aggrieved by the order passed by learned writ Court, appellants/State filed the present writ appeal before this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants/State submits that the order passed by learned Writ Court is contrary to the law and the Writ Court has not taken into consideration the Circular issued by the State Government from time to time with regard to process of sealed cover while considering the case of an employee in DPC. It is an admitted fact that DPC was co