JUDGMENT :

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

“A. Writ of Mandamus directing the Department to open the sealed-cover regarding the DPC Recommendation dated 18.04.2018 concerning the Petitioner’s promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil), and thereby promote the Petitioner w.e.f. the date his juniors were promoted i.e. 24.04.2018 (Annexure P-4), and consequentially restore his seniority and grant him arears of difference of salary, along with interest @ 12% p.a.

B. Any other Order this Court may deem fit, ex aqueo at bono.”

2. In effect, the petitioner is seeking a direction from this Court to the respondents to open the sealed cover in respect of recommendations made by Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) on 18.04.2018 for petitioner’s promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) and thereby to promote him on the said post with effect from 24.04.2018 when officers junior to the petitioner were promoted and consequentially restore his seniority and grant him arrears of difference of salary with interest at 12% per annum.

3. The case of the petitioner as noted from the record and also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, he is working as an Assistant Executive Engineer in Border Roads Organisation (BRO). On 07.11.2017, he was issued a charge-sheet. On 18.04.2018, when the charge-sheet was still under consideration, a DPC was convened, which considered all the officers in the Zone Of Consideration for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil). According to the petitioner, thirty-two officers were promoted on 24.04.2018 which included officers junior to the petitioner, but not the petitioner.

4. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, the recommendations of the DPC were kept in a sealed cover. On 01.10.2021, the petitioner was exonerated in the charge-sheet issued on 07.11.2017. It is his case, that in view of the exoneration, the sealed cover ought to have been opened and the recommendations given effect to. The respondents did not open the sealed cover. According to them, the same is in view of the pendency of the second charge-sheet dated 25.03.2021 issued to the petitioner before the exoneration of the petitioner on 01.10.2021. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Jal Board v. Mahinder Singh (2000) 7 SCC 210 to contend the pendency of second charge-sheet shall not be an impediment to open the sealed cover and promote the petitioner if found fit. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgments in the case of Union of India v. Doly Loyi, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2613, Union of India v. K V Jankiraman 1991 (4) SCC 109 and Sunil Chaurasia v. District & Sessions Judge (HQS) 2023 SCC OnLine Del 826, for a similar proposition.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner while serving as a Paying Officer in 109 Road Construction Company (RCC) was found by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to be involved in a case of false mustering with the help of medical examination form in connivance with OC 109 RCC. The CBI, Srinagar recommended taking regular departmental action against the petitioner for major penalty. According to the respondents while functioning as paying officer in 109 RCC, the petitioner was alleged to have been involved in another case of fake and forged mustering.

6. Accordingly, the first charge sheet was issued on 07.11.2017. The promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) fell due and as per the DPC recommendations, thirty two officers were promoted. The petitioner was not promoted and his case was kept in a sealed cover. In the meanwhile on 25.03.2021, a second charge sheet was issued to the petitioner. That on 01.10.2021, the petitioner was exonerated in respect to the first charge-sheet. The second charge-sheet issued on 25.03.2021, has resulted in the orde