Promotion results cannot be withheld via sealed cover procedure based on pending investigations or preliminary inquiries. This measure is only permissible when an employee is under suspension or a formal disciplinary charge memo or criminal charge sheet has been served at the time of the committee's deliberation.

JUDGMENT :

SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

1. Heard Mr. Vijay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Brijendra Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.6.2025 passed by the respondent no.1 whereby the representation of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Senior Manager (Civil) has been rejected.

3. The brief factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner had initially been appointed as Assistant Manager (Civil) in the department of Greater NOIDA Industrial Development Authority, Gautam Buddh Nagar, on 13.9.2002 and he was promoted to the post of Manager Grade II on 10.3.2008 and thereafter to the post of Manager Grade I within (Project), on 14.11.2014. The wife of the brother of the petitioner, namely, Smt. Suresh Devi, lodged an F.I.R. on 11.6.2014 against several accused persons, out of which one accused, namely, Tarun, being whimsical filed a complaint against the petitioner, on 13.8.2014, before the Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister, U.P.and Director, Enforcement Directorate, U.P.

4. Thereafter, by the order dated 1.10.2014, a departmental inquiry was instituted by the State Government on the above-stated complaint, and the petitioner was asked to submit a reply, vide letter dated 3.11.2014. In response thereto, a reply was submitted by the petitioner on 16.12.2014, whereupon the inquiry officer submitted his report on 14.3.2018, wherein the petitioner was exonerated from the charges leveled against him.

5. The appointing authority, being satisfied with the inquiry report, dropped the inquiry proceedings and submitted a report to the State Government vide letter dated 27.6.2018 but, since, in the meantime, the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Development Authorities Centralized Services Rules, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules 2018') were promulgated, which came into effect on 22.6.2018, wherein the State Government was made the appointing authority of the petitioner, therefore, another inquiry was instituted against the petitioner on 14.8.2019, under the Rules of 1999, on the basis of the same complaint dated 14.8.2014, and the charge sheet was served upon the petitioner on 14.8.2019, with the charges that the petitioner did not inform the competent authority about the properties and cars purchased by him during the period from 16.9.2002 to 18.12.2015, wherein the reply was submitted by the petitioner on 30.9.2019 and the inquiry officer submitted his inquiry report on 24.10.2019 wherein the charges leveled against the petitioner were not found proved.

6. In the meantime, the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'the DPC') was held on 24.12.2020, and the decision with respect to the promotion of the petitioner was kept in a sealed cover, while adopting the sealed cover procedure, on the ground that the departmental proceeding is pending against him and on the basis of the recommendation of the DPC, the person junior to the petitioner, namely, Anil Kumar Jauhri, was promoted to the post of Senior Manager (Civil), vide promotion letter dated 29.12.2020.

7. On 15.12.2021, the respondent no.1, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner, thereby mentioning disagreement with the inquiry report dated 24.10.2019, on the ground t