Departmental Promotion Committee Can Follow "Sealed Cover Procedure" Only After Filing Of Chargesheet: Supreme Court
|The Supreme Court observed that the “sealed cover procedure”, while considering the promotion of a government employee facing a criminal investigation, should be followed only after the chargesheet is submitted.
The Court said that the pendency of the investigation is not sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the procedure.
The Bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice R Mahadevan held, “The disciplinary/criminal proceedings can be said to be initiated against the employee only when a charge memo is issued to the employee in a disciplinary proceeding or a charge-sheet for a criminal prosecution is filed in the competent Court. The sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after issuance of the charge-memo/charge-sheet is issued. The pendency of investigation and grant of prosecution sanction will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure.”
ASG Vikramjit Bannerjee and Senior Advocate Wasim Qadri appeared for the Appellants, whereas AOR Surinder Kumar Gupta appeared for the Respondent.
An Appeal was filed challenging the judgment passed by the Delhi High Court whereby the writ petition preferred by the Appellant herein, i.e., the Union of India, was dismissed, and the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (‘Tribunal’) was upheld. The Tribunal had allowed an application filed by the Respondent herein challenging the denial of promotional benefits to him.
The Respondent was the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax. In 2001, an FIR was registered against him for the offences punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 13(1) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, alleging inter alia that he, while working as the Special Secretary(Finance), Government of Arunachal Pradesh acted in conspiracy with other officers and committed criminal misconduct by abusing his position as a public servant. The Departmental Promotion Committee (‘DPC’) was convened to consider his promotion to the post of Commissioner of Income Tax. However, the vigilance certificate of the respondent was withheld, and the recommendations of the DPC with regard to the promotion of the respondent were kept in a sealed cover on the basis that the ‘Prosecution for criminal charge’ was pending against him, and thus, he was deprived of being considered for promotion along with his batchmates.
Aggrieved by the withholding of the vigilance clearance and adoption of the sealed cover procedure, the respondent filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, which was allowed and the Appellants were directed to consider the case of the respondent and pass a reasoned order within two months. In compliance with the said direction, the appellants considered the case of the respondent for promotion and vide communication rejected the same, holding that there was no justification for the opening of ‘Sealed Cover’ and considering the case of the respondent herein for promotion along with his batchmates.
The order was challenged by the respondent before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, by an application. The Tribunal allowed the aforesaid Application, quashed the communication and directed the appellants herein to open the sealed cover adopted in the case of promotion of the respondent and give effect to the same, and if he was found fit for promotion, then to promote him and also award back wages.
The core issue for consideration was whether, by the mere grant of prosecution sanction, it could be said that the prosecution for a criminal charge was pending against the Respondent and whether the grant of sanction for prosecution could be a valid ground for putting the DPC recommendations in a sealed cover.
The Court said that the charge sheet against the respondent was filed after the meeting of the DPC was convened; hence, it could not be said that the prosecution for a criminal charge was pending against the respondent when the DPC was convened. Therefore, the Court observed that the move on the part of DPC to resort to the sealed cover procedure was unjustified and unsustainable on facts and in law.
“Resultantly, we have no hesitation in holding that the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 26th April, 2013 is based on apropos consideration of facts and law and hence the same does not warrant interference.”
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Appeal. The ‘Sealed Cover’ wherein the assessment of the respondent was considered by the DPC was presented to the Court by counsel for the appellant and was opened. The letter showed that the DPC assessed the respondent to be ‘FIT’ for promotion. The Court, hence, directed that consequential steps should follow.
Cause Title: Union of India and Ors. v. Doly Loyi (Neutral Citation:2024 INSC 729)
Appearances:
Appellant: ASG Vikramjit Bannerjee, Senior Advocate Wasim Qadri, AOR Raj Bahadur Yadav, Advocates Shashank Bajpai, Rajeeva Ranjan Rajesh and Aaditya Shankar Dixit.
Respondents: AOR Surinder Kumar Gupta and Advocate Udit Gupta.