Can't Withhold Promotion On Ground Of Adopting Sealed Cover Procedure During Pendency Of Criminal Case: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has observed that the Competent Authority can not withhold the recommendation of a person indefinitely on the ground of adopting the sealed cover procedure during the pendency of the criminal case.

The bench of Justice Jaspreet Singh observed thus while granting relief to one Ranbir Singh (presently serving as a Tehsildar with the State Government and seeking promotion to the post of a Deputy Collector) by directing the Competent Authority to consider his claim of opening the sealed cover within a period of eight weeks from the date.

Essentially, it was the case of the petitioner that as per the prescribed procedure for promotion, he was due to be promoted from the post of Tehsildar to the post of Deputy Collector.

However, when the Departmental Promotion Committee, in its meeting held on August 23, 2018, prepared a list of Tehsildars to be promoted to the post of Deputy Collector and sent the same to the Public Service Commission, the same did not contain the name of the petitioner.

Upon making the inquiries, it was informed to him that his case had been withheld and had been put in a sealed cover as the petitioner was suspended on August 1, 2018, i.e. the date before the meeting of the DPC, on the basis of some allegations made to the Chairman of Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority.

The allegations were in respect of certain purchase of 57.149 hectares of land for the development by the Authority in District Mathura.

Now, he moved the High Court seeking promotion by submitting that though he was suspended in August 2018, but the departmental chargesheet was served on the petitioner only in March 2021 i.e. after more than 2 and half years, and that too in compliance with the High Court's order.

It was also pointed out that in respect of the allegations, the criminal proceedings were also initiated in September 2019 in the Court of Special Judge, Meerut, however, the petitioner was enlarged on bail in October 2019 and though the trial is still pending and out of 27 witnesses only one witness has been examined.

It was strongly argued by the Counsels appearing for the petitioner led by Senior Advocate Anoop Trivedi that the persons junior to the petitioner have been promoted and only on the basis of the case which is pending against the petitioner, his case has been placed under sealed cover, and even though the criminal trial may take time, yet, the promotion of the petitioner cannot be deferred or kept in abeyance indefinitely.

It was lastly submitted that the filing of a chargesheet subsequent to the date of DPC may not have any adverse impact as the date when the case of the petitioner was to be considered by the DPC is of importance and on that day no proceedings were pending

Taking into account the above submission, the Court, at the outset, referred to the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of K. V. Jankiraman (supra), wherein it was held that the sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after the charge-memo/charge-sheet is issued and that the pendency of preliminary investigation prior to that stage will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure.

In this very case, it was also held that the promotion cannot be withheld merely because some disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending against the employee and that to deny the said benefit, they must be at the relevant time pending at the stage when the charge-memo/charge sheet has already been issued to the employee. 

In this regard, the Court also referred to the High Court's ruling in the case of Km. Maya (Mahila Constable Vs. State of U.P. and others) (2011) 5 ADJ 818

Against this backdrop, the Court observed thus:

"Having considered the aforesaid submissions and the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of K.V. Jankiraman (supra) and this Court in the case of Km. Maya (Supra), the fact that irrespective of the pendency of the criminal case, the petitioner has continued to serve and mere pendency of the criminal case cannot be taken as a ground to deny the promotion to the petitioner nor the Competent Authority can withhold the recommendation of the petitioner indefinitely on the ground of adopting the sealed cover procedure during the pendency of the criminal case."

Accordingly, the petition was disposed of with a direction to the Competent Authority to consider the claim of the petitioner for opening the sealed cover within a period of eight weeks.

Appearances

Counsel for Petitioner: S. M. Faraz I. Kazmi, Sr. Advocate

Counsel for Respondent: C.S.C.,M.N. Singh

Case title - Ranbir Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT - A No. - 1789 of 2022]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 56

Click Here To Read/Download Order