IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

224 Date of decision: 02.12.2025 Gurdial Kumar .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present : Mr. J.S. Maanipur, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Satnampreet Singh Chauhan, DAG, Punjab.

Ms. Harpreet Kaur, Advocate for respondent No.3.

****

NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing order dated 06.05.2022 (Annexure P-5), whereby his case for promotion has been kept in a sealed cover on the ground that a criminal case is pending against him.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner initially joined service in the respondent department as Agriculture Development Officer on 05.10.2000. Next promotion from the said post is to the post of Agriculture Officer. His name was placed at Sr.No.637 in the seniority list circulated vide letter dated 19.06.2019. He was implicated in FIR No.124 dated 22.07.2016 under Section 384 of IPC and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Bathinda, along with two other officers of the department in which he was arrested and released on bail after one month. On that ground, he was put under suspension vide order dated 17.08.2016, however, in the said criminal case neither final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. has been filed nor charges have been framed against the petitioner till date and no disciplinary proceedings have been initiated. Even the suspension was also revoked vide order dated 21.02.2018 and the petitioner was reinstated. Vide order dated 17.09.2021, while considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Agriculture Officer, his name was kept in a sealed cover and various persons junior to him were promoted. He further submits that since neither any disciplinary proceedings were pending against the petitioner as no charge sheet was issued to him nor final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. was filed before the trial Court in the said criminal case and no charges have been framed, therefore, he was entitled to be promoted and his case has wrongly been kept in a sealed cover. The said action of the respondents is in violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. K.V. Jankiraman : 1991(3) SCT 317, which has been further reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others Vs. Anil Kumar Sarkar : 2013(2) SCT 753. In the said judgment, it was held as under:-

“13. It is not in dispute that an identical issue was considered by this Court in Union of India and Others v. K.V. Jankiraman and Others, 1991(3) S.C.T. 317 : (1991)4 SCC 109. The common questions involved in all those matters were:

(1) What is the date from which it can be said that disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending against an employee? (2) What is the course to be adopted when the employee is held guilty in such proceedings if the guilt merits punishment other than that of dismissal? and (3) To what benefits an employee who is completely or partially exonerated is entitled to and from which date?. Among the three questions, we are concerned about question No.1. As per the rules applicable, the “sealed cover procedure” is adopted when an employee is due for promotion, increment etc. but disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending against him at the relevant time and hence, the findings of his entitlement to the benefit are kept in a sealed cover to be opened after the proceedings in question are over. Inasmuch as we are concerned about the first question, the dictum laid down by this Court relating to the said issue is as follows:-

“16. On the first question, viz., as to when for the purposes of the sealed cover procedure the disciplinary/criminal proceedings can be said to have commenced, the Full Bench of the Tribunal has held that