$~79 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 28.01.2025 + W.P.(C) 17926/2024 NEERAJ KUMAR PANDEY .....Petitioner Through: Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Mr.Anshuman Mehrotra, Mr.Nikunj Arora, Mr.Prahil Sharma, Advs.

versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr.Mukul Singh, CGSC, Mr.Gokul Sharma, GP, Ms.Ira Singh, Mr.Aryan Dhaka, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, praying for quashing of the Signal dated 05.12.2024 whereby the respondents have communicated to the petitioner that he has been declared „unfit‟ for promotion to the post of Deputy Inspector General (in short, „DIG‟) by the Departmental Promotional Committee (in short, „DPC‟)

held on 28.03.2023.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Commandant in the Central Reserve Police Force (in short, „CRPF‟) on 27.07.2010. In the year 2023, there were 18 vacancies for the post of DIG that were likely to be created. Accordingly, the respondents, vide Signal dated 14.02.2023, called for Signature Not Verified WP(C) 17926/2024 Page 1 of 15 Digitally Signed the drawing of a panel for the promotion from the post of Commandants to the rank of DIG for the vacancy year 2023. The petitioner was at Sl. No.13 of the gradation list of Commandant as of

01.01.2023, therefore, his name was also included in the said list.

3. Before the DPC could consider the case of the petitioner, an FIR under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was lodged against the petitioner by the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short, „CBI‟) on

16.03.2023.

4. The DPC was convened on 28.03.2023 and placed its recommendations with respect to the petitioner in a sealed cover.

5. Aggrieved of the same, the petitioner approached this Court by way of a Writ Petition, being W.P.(C). 15719/2023, titled Neeraj Kumar Pandey v. Union of India & Ors., claiming therein that the conditions for resorting to the sealed cover procedure had not been satisfied in the present case, as no departmental proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner, nor any charge-sheet in the criminal case filed, and the petitioner had also not been placed under suspension.

6. Taking note of the above submission, which had not been denied by the respondents, this Court by its Judgment dated 11.09.2024 passed in the abovementioned writ petition, held that the resort to the sealed cover procedure was contrary to the Office Memorandums dated 14.09.1992 and 02.11.1992, as well as the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. K.V.

Signature Not Verified WP(C) 17926/2024 Page 2 of 15 Digitally Signed Janakiraman, (1991) 4 SCC 109. This Court, therefore, allowed the writ petition by directing the respondents to open the sealed cover containing the recommendations made by the DPC qua the petitioner.

7. Pursuant to the above directions, the sealed cover containing the recommendation of the DPC was opened on 03.12.2024. However, the petitioner was found to have been declared „unfit‟ for promotion by the DPC on the ground that the FIR mentioned hereinabove had been registered by the CBI against him for possession of the assets of Rs.5,61,94,065/- which is disproportionate to his known source of income. The DPC records that considering the general service record and the grave nature of charges in the above FIR, the petitioner was deemed „unfit‟ for promotion to the rank of DIG (GD) in the CRPF. The DPC notes that in terms of DoP&T Guidelines, it enjoys full discretion to devise its own method and procedures for the objective assessment of the suitability of the candidates who are to be considered by them, including those officers on whom penalties have been imposed.

8. The petitioner, not knowing the reason why he has been declared „unfit‟ for promotion, approached this Court by way of the present petition.

9. This Court, b