Mere Grant Of Prosecution Sanction Against Central Govt Employee Not Reason To Put DPC Recommendations In Sealed Cover : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that the mere grant of prosecution sanction against a Central Government employee is not a reason to put the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) in a sealed cover.

The Court stated that by the mere grant of prosecution sanction, it cannot be said that the prosecution for a criminal charge so as to adopt the sealed cover procedure regarding DPC recommendations.

A bench comprising Justices Sandeep Mehta and R Mahadevan held so while dismissing the Union of India's appeal against the judgments of the Delhi High Court and the Central Administrative Tribunal which held that there was no justification to keep the DPC recommendations against the respondent in a sealed cover.

While the respondent was working as an Additional Commissioner of Income Tax in 2001, an FIR was registered against him for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. In 2007, the DPC recommendations regarding the respondent for promotion to the the post of Commissioner of Income Tax was kept in a sealed cover on the basis that the 'Prosecution for criminal charge' was pending against him.

The issue considered by the Supreme Court was : “Whether by the mere grant of prosecution sanction, it could be said that the prosecution for a criminal charge is pending against the respondent Government Servant and whether grant of sanction for prosecution could be a valid ground for putting the DPC recommendations in a sealed cover”?

The Court noted that as per OM dated 14th September, 1992,sealed cover procedure can be resorted to in respect of three categories of Government servants - those under suspension, those in respect of whom a charge sheet has been issued and the disciplinary proceedings are pending, and those in respect of whom prosecution for criminal charge is pending.

The question before the Court was whether a mere grant of prosecution sanction would be sufficient to infer that the prosecution for a criminal charge was pending against the respondent.

Reference was made to Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman (1991) 4 SCC 109, wherein it was held that the sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after the charge memo/charge sheet is issued.

The OM dated 2nd November, 2012, issued after the Janakiraman judgment also stated :

The sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after the charge memo/charge sheet is issued or the officer is placed under suspension. The pendency of preliminary investigation prior to that stage is not adopt the sealed cover procedure.

In this backdrop, the Court stated :

"Considering the above position, 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."

The appeal of the Union Government was accordingly dismissed. On opening the sealed cover, the Court noted that the DPC endorsed the respondent as "Fit" for promotion. So, the consequential steps were directed to be taken.

Case : Union of India v. Doly Loyi

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 742

Click here to read the judgment