2025:CGHC:14301 Digitally NAFR signed by JYOTI JYOTI SHARMA SHARMA Date:

2025.03.26

17:23:44 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR +0530 WPS No. 704 of 2025

1 Anamika Jain D/o Kiran Kumar Jain Aged About 40 Years Working As Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Posted As Office Of Dy. Inspector General, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.)

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

2 The Director General Of Police Department Of Home, Police Head Quarter, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

3 Chhattisgarh Public Service Commisiion Through Secretary, North Block Sector 19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Shri Vikas Dubey, Advocate For Respondent(s)/ : Shri Ajit Singh, G.A.

State For Respondent : Ms. Apoorva Nigam on behalf of Shri Sudeep No. 3 Agrawal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

Order on Board

25/03/2025 Heard.

1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner, who is working as Deputy Superintendent of Police, is questioning the act of respondents who have adopted the ‘sealed cover procedure’ after the meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter being referred to as ‘DPC’) dated 29.07.2024.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is eligible and entitled for promotion to the post of Additional Superintendent of Police for which the DPC meeting was convened on 29.07.2024. He further submits that after the DPC meeting, as far as the petitioner’s case is concerned, the respondents have adopted ‘sealed cover procedure’ and promotion order of the petitioner has been kept in abeyance. He further by referring the reply of the State submits that the respondents have adopted the ‘sealed cover procedure’ on the ground that a departmental enquiry has been proposed against the petitioner and only for the said reason the recommendation by the DPC has been kept in sealed cover. He further by referring the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Union Of India Vs. Doly Loyi in civil appeal No.8387/2013 (Neutral Citation 2024 INSC 729) submits that pendency of investigation and grant of prosecution sanction will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure. The disciplinary / criminal proceedings can be said to be initiated against the employee only when a charge memo is issued to the employee in a disciplinary proceeding or a charge-sheet for a criminal prosecution is filed in the competent Court. In the present case of the petitioner neither any charge-memo has been issued to the petitioner for departmental enquiry nor any charge sheet has been filed by the respondent against the petitioner for criminal proceedings, hence, the procedure adopted by the respondents is bad in law. He further prays that the respondents may be directed to open the seal cover and give promotion to the petitioner to the post of Addl. SP.

3. Learned State counsel submits that the respondents have decided to adopt the procedure of seal cover as there is departmental enquiry proposed against the petitioner pursuance to R-1 and a criminal case is also pending against the present petitioner. He further submits that as the departmental enquiry is proposed against the petitioner and a criminal case is pending hence the decision to adopt the ‘seal cover procedure’ by the respondents is just and proper and there is no illegality in the same.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings of the petitioner and reply of the state.

5. It is not in dispute that the respondents state has adopted seal cover procedure on the ground that Departmental enquiry has been proposed against the petitioner. Further, the respondents failed to show that any charge memo is issued in the DE or any charge sheet has been filed in criminal case by the respondent against