GAHC010178772025

undefined

· Date on which Judgment was reserved : Open Court Dictation

· Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative Part of the Judgment : No

· Whether the full Judgment has been Pronounced : Yes

JUDGMENT AND ORDER

Heard Mr. F Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P Nayak, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam.

2] The petitioner, before the Court, is serving as an Assistant Executive Engineer under the PWD Roads and he is posted at Majbat Rural Roads Sub-Division, Udalguri. In connection with completion certificate issued by the petitioner in respect of works undertaken by a contractor, which according to the Department was contrary to the records, a vigilance case was instituted against the writ petitioner being Vigilance Police Station Case No. 01 of 2024, registered under section 120B/420/468/481/406/409 IPC read with Sections 13(1)(a)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The matter is at the stage of investigation and prosecution sanction was also accorded by the competent authority when, the petitioner's case came to be considered for promotion to the next higher post, namely, the post of Executive Engineer, PWD Roads, along with other similarly situated persons. His case was placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). The DPC, upon considering the materials in respect of the petitioner, kept his case under sealed cover in view of the materials placed before the DPC, that prosecution sanction has been granted in respect of the petitioner on the day when the DPC had undertaken the process of selection and recommendation. It is this action of the State of resorting to sealed cover procedure that is assailed before the Court.

3] Learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in Union of India vs. KV Jankiraman reported in (1991) 4 SCC 109, as also a recent judgement of the Apex Court rendered in Union of India and Ors. vs. Doly Loyi in Civil Appeal No.8387/2013 on 24.09.2024, submits that as per the law laid down, the stage for resorting to the sealed cover procedure in respect of any employee arises only after a charge sheet/charge memo has been filed/issued. It is submitted that on the date when by the DPC the matter was under consideration, no charge sheet was filed, only prosecution sanction was granted. As such, the Department, contrary to the law laid down by Apex Court, had kept the case of the petitioner under sealed cover. It is submitted that the petitioner is unaware of whether he has been recommended for promotion as his case was kept under sealed cover even before the charge sheet was filed and, as a consequence, the petitioner was deprived of his promotion to the next higher post along with his batchmates and, thereby, he lost his seniority in service.

4] Per contra, Mr. P Nayak, learned Additional Advocate General, submits that the contentions of the writ petitioner that charge sheet was not issued is incorrect because subsequently the charge sheet has been submitted before the Court and the matter is presently pending disposal before the competent court of criminal jurisdiction. It is submitted that the Department had considered it fit to keep the case of the petitioner’s case in sealed cover in view of the fact that the prosecution sanction was issued and the investigation was proceeding in right earnest, which will ultimately lead to filing of the charge sheet against the petitioner. He therefore submits that since the charge sheet has already been filed in the meantime, the petitioner's case should be considered only after the completion of the trial.

5] Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. Pleadings available on record have been carefully perused. Judgments pressed into service have also been carefully noted.

6] The Apex Court in Jankiraman (supra) was examining the Office Memorandum dated 30.01.1982, which came to be subsequently explained by another Office Memorandum dated 12.01.1