Failure to disclose relevant facts can lead to dismissal of review petitions, emphasizing transparency and compliance with tribunal orders.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)

CM APPL. 65852/2025 (Exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

REVIEW PET. 528/2025 & CM APPL. 65853/2025

2. The Review Petition under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, ‘CPC’), has been filed by the review petitioners/writ petitioners, seeking a review of the Judgment dated 28.08.2025 passed by this Court in the above Writ Petition, whereby, while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners, this Court had directed the writ petitioners to comply with the order of the learned Tribunal within a period of four weeks.

3. The above writ petition had been filed by the writ petitioners challenging the Order dated 17.12.2024, whereby the said O.A. filed by the respondent herein was disposed of with the following directions:

“8. In light of the above, we allow this OA with following directions:

(a) Respondent nos. 1 to 3 are directed to open the sealed cover pertaining to applicant's promotion and in the event his name is recommended by UPSC, he shall be granted promotion to the post of Additional Commissioner w.e.f. 01 .01.2021.

(b) Respondent nos. 1 to 3 are further directed to place applicant's name at appropriate position in the final seniority list dated 28.03.2024 of Joint Commissioners of Customs and Indirect Taxes.

The aforesaid directions shall be complied within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”

4. The respondent had approached the learned Tribunal, contending that the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee (‘DPC’) held on 18.03.2024 could not have been kept in a sealed cover, as such action was contrary to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. K.V. Jankiraman & Ors., (1991) 4 SCC 109. The learned Tribunal, as well as this Court, accepted the aforesaid submission of the respondent.

5. The present review petition has been filed on the premise that, while the Judgment in the writ petition was reserved on 29.07.2025, prior to its pronouncement, on 18.08.2025, a Charge Memo had been issued to the respondent initiating Departmental Proceedings.

6. Placing reliance on Office Memorandum No. 22011/4/91-Estt-A dated 14th September, 1992, the learned counsel for the review petitioners submits that in a case where a Government Servant, who has been recommended for promotion by the DPC, is issued a charge-sheet for departmental enquiry before being actually promoted, the recommendations of the DPC in respect of such officer can again be placed in a sealed cover. He further submits that, in the present case, since the promotion has not yet been granted to the respondent, the impugned judgment is liable to be reviewed.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent, who appears on advance notice of this review petition, submits that the sequence of events demonstrates that the respondent is being repeatedly victimised by the petitioners without any justifiable cause. He submits that the DPC was held on 18.03.2024, when there was no cause for placing the recommendations qua the respondent in a sealed cover. This plea of the respondent has been accepted, not only by the learned Tribunal but also by this Court. Although the order of the learned Tribunal was passed on 17.12.2024 directing the review petitioners to open the sealed cover and grant promotion to the respondent to the post of Additional Commissioner with effect from 01.01.2021, the petitioners failed to comply with the said order and, instead, filed the present writ petition after a delay of more than seven mo