The sealed cover procedure for promotion can only be invoked once a formal charge-memo in disciplinary proceedings or a charge-sheet in criminal prosecution has been served. Pendency of mere preliminary investigations or allegations does not satisfy the legal requirement to withhold an employee's promotion.

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING AND SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 02.12.2025 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, PRODUCED HEREIN AS ANNEXURE-E, BEING ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY, NON-SPEAKING, AND CONTRARY TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THIS HONBLE COURT IN W.P.NO.32863/2025 AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

(a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned endorsement dated 02.12.2025 passed by the 2nd Respondent, produced herein as Annexure-E, being illegal, arbitrary, non-speaking and contrary to the directions of this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.32863/2025;

(b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents, and in particulars Respondent No.3 being the Appointing Authority, to forthwith convence the DPC Proceedings consider the Petitioner’s case for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer in accordance with the Sealed Cover Procedure as mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.V. Janakiraman (1991) 4 SCC 109, and pass appropriate orders within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.”

2. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the respondents and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner being an Executive Engineer (Head Quarters and Technical Services), Khanija Bhavan, Bangalore approached this Court in W.P.No.32863/2025, which was disposed of vide final order dated 05.11.2025 as hereunder:

“After arguing the matter for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner filed a memo seeking leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition with a liberty to file a fresh representation to the respondents.

2. The memo is placed on record.

3. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.

4. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to submit a representation to the respondents within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. If such a representation is made by the petitioner, the respondents are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the representation.”

4. In pursuance of the said order passed by this Court, the petitioner having submitted a representation at Annexure - D dated 17.11.2025, the respondent No.2 proceeded to issue the impugned communication refusing to consider the request of the petitioner for promotion on the ground that there was no provision and that departmental enquiry was pending against the petitioner and as such, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that notwithstanding the fact that the departmental enquiry is said to be pending against the petitioner, in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Union of India and Ors., Vs. K.V.Janakiraman and Ors – (1991) 4 SCC 109, and Union of India and Ors Vs. Anil Kumar Sarkar – (2013) 4 SCC 161, there is no impediment for the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner for grant of promotion and the sealed cover procedur