The Allahabad High Court allowed the Petition and directed the Competent Authority to consider the claim of the Petitioner for opening the sealed cover. A single judge bench of this Court comprising Hon’ble Justice Jaspreet Singh held that the competent authority is not empowered to withhold the Petitioner's name for an indefinite period by adopting the sealed cover procedure if a criminal case is pending.
Brief Facts:
The present writ Petition was for seeking the following relief-
- Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant promotion to the petitioner to the post of Deputy Collector w.e.f. 23.08.2018, to which the officers junior to the petitioner were promoted.
- Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant him all consequential benefits admissible to him.
The case of the Petitioner was that he joined the services of the State of Uttar Pradesh as Nayab Tehsildar in 1996. When the list of names was sent for the promotion as per the prescribed procedure, the name of the Petitioner was also sent.
On 23.08.2018 the recommendation made by the DPC and the Public Service Commission released the list of Tehsildars promoted to the post of Deputy Collector, however, shocking to the Petitioner, his name did not find a place in the said list. Upon making inquiries, it was informed that the Petitioner's case had been withheld and put in a sealed cover as the Petitioner was suspended on 01.08.2018 i.e. the date before the meeting of the DPC. Although, no charge sheet against the Petitioner on the date of the meeting of the DPC was served.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that though the Petitioner was suspended, but the departmental chargesheet was served on the Petitioner only on 15.03.2021 i.e. after more than 2 and half years, and that too in compliance with the order dated 06.08.2021 passed by this Court in Writ-A No. 1396 of 2021. It was also pointed out that in respect of the same allegations for which the departmental charge sheet was issued, criminal proceedings were also initiated on 25.09.2019 in the Court of Special Judge, Court No. 2, Meerut where the Petitioner was enlarged on bail on 31.10.2019 and though the trial is still pending and out of 27 witnesses only one witness has been examined.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel for the State, while refuting the aforesaid submissions urged that the Petitioner was involved in serious irregularities and, for the aforesaid reasons was suspended on 01.08.2018. It was also submitted that prior to the date of DPC, the Petitioner had been suspended, and in view of the Government Order dated 28.05.1997, any person who is put under suspension, his case regarding the recommendations will be placed in a sealed cover.
Observations of the Court:
The Court finds that it is not disputed that on the given date i.e. 02.08.2018, no departmental proceedings were pending against the Petitioner nor the criminal proceedings. It is also not disputed that the charge sheet in the departmental proceedings was served on the Petitioner on 15.03.2021, and in the criminal proceedings, the charge sheet was filed on 25.09.2018 i.e. subsequent to the date of DPC.
Considering the dictum of Apex Court in Union of India and others Vs. K.V. Jankiraman and others reported in (1991) 4 SCC 109, the bench held 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 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.
The decision of the Court:
In view of the aforesaid observations, the present 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 from the date, a copy of this order is placed before the concerned Authority.
Case Title: Ranbir Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Jaspreet Singh
Case no.: WRIT - A No. - 1789 of 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: - S.M.Faraz I. Kazmi
Advocate for the Respondents: - C.S.C.,M.N. Singh
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
