[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Subhas Chandra Vyas ( Known As S.C. Vyas ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33970
1 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5768
1 W.P. No.43709/2025
No. 36989/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
WRIT PETITION No. 36989 of 2024
SUBHAS CHANDRA VYAS ( KNOWN AS S.C. VYAS IN THE
SERVICE RECORD )
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri A.K.Sethi -Senior Advocate with Shri Harish Joshi for the
petitioner.
Ms.Swati Okhale -GA for the respondents/State.
Reserved on 19.02.2026
Post on 26.02.2026
ORDER
2 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5768
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari for
quashing the order dated 23.10.2024 (Annexure P/12) passed by the
Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of
Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner further seeks a direction to the
respondents to open the sealed cover pertaining to the Departmental
Promotion Committee (DPC) meeting held on 26.07.2008 and to
subsequently convene a review DPC for consideration of his
promotion from the post of Superintending Engineer to Chief
Engineer with retrospective effect, along with all consequential
benefits including back wages and interest.
2. The petitioner, a member of the Scheduled Caste category
was initially appointed as an Assistant Engineer on 13.09.1979 on
an ad-hoc basis. He was subsequently selected by the MP Public
Service Commission (PSC) and appointed on a regular basis vide
order dated 05.06.1985. The petitioner stood retired from service
upon attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2018.
3. During his service, the petitioner was suspended on
11.08.2006, and a charge sheet was issued on 17.10.2006. Pursuant
to a departmental enquiry, a punishment order was passed on
03.09.2012. The petitioner's departmental appeal was dismissed on
05.04.2014. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 4350/2014
3 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5768
before this Court, which was allowed on 17.06.2021, setting aside
the punishment and appellate orders. The State's Writ Appeal
(W.A. No. 1216/2021) was dismissed on 30.08.2022, leading to the
issuance of a consequential order by the respondents on 04.01.2024.
4. In a parallel development regarding seniority, the petitioner
had approached the MP State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.
248/1998, which was later transferred to this Court as W.P. No.
23904/2003. Vide order dated 18.09.2012, this Court directed the
respondents to fix the petitioner's seniority as Assistant Engineer
(Civil) w.e.f. the date of his initial ad-hoc appointment.
Consequently, the respondents revised his seniority list position
from S.No. 2297 to S.No. 906 (position as on 01.04.1992).
Following this, the petitioner was granted proforma promotion as
Executive Engineer w.e.f. 25.03.2003.
5. On 26.07.2008, a DPC was convened for promotion to the
post of Superintending Engineer. The petitioner's name appeared at
S.No. 317; however, the recommendations were kept in a sealed
cover due to the then-pending departmental enquiry initiated on
17.10.2006. While juniors were promoted, the petitioner's case
remained unresolved. Despite his exoneration by the Court and
subsequent representations dated 09.01.2024 and 13.04.2024, the
4 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5768
respondents rejected his claim for opening the sealed cover and
further promotion via the impugned order dated 23.10.2024.
6. The petitioner contends that the sole basis for keeping his
promotion in a sealed cover during the DPC dated 26.07.2008 was
the departmental enquiry initiated on 17.10.2006. Since the said
enquiry and the resulting punishment have been quashed by this
Court and attained finality, there exists no legal impediment to
opening the sealed cover.
7. It is further argued that as per GAD circulars, once an
employee is exonerated, the sealed cover must be opened and
benefits be granted retrospectively. The petitioner asserts that the
subsequent enquiries initiated in 2012 and 2015 cannot be treated as
a bar for the 2008 DPC benefits, as those charges were not in
existence when the original DPC met. The petitioner claims
entitlement to promotion as Superintending Engineer w.e.f.
27.02.2003 and Chief Engineer w.e.f. 29.05.2008 based on his
revised seniority.
8. The respondents, in their reply, submit that while the 2006
enquiry was indeed quashed, the petitioner's case was again
considered in a Review DPC on 22.04.2015. At that time, two other
departmental enquiries (dated 05.04.2012 and 17.04.2015) were
5 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5768
pending. Consequently, the petitioner's name was again kept in a
sealed cover in accordance with Clause 2(1)(iii) of the GAD
Circular dated 30.06.1994.
9. The respondents further highlight that in the subsequent
enquiries, penalties were actually imposed: a penalty of censure on
21.12.2016 and a recovery of ₹8,68,900 along with a 10% pension
cut for three years on 11.08.2020. They contend that since the
petitioner was found guilty in these two later enquiries, he is
ineligible for promotion based on the 2008 DPC, and there is no
provision for a second review of the said DPC.
10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record. The primary issue for consideration is whether the
pendency of subsequent enquiries (post-2010) can obstruct the
realization of promotion benefits from a DPC held in 2008, where
the original cause for the sealed cover (the 2006 enquiry) has been
set aside.
11. The law regarding sealed cover procedure is well-settled. The
Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman,
(1991) 4 SCC 109, held:
26. We are, therefore, broadly in agreement with the
finding of the Tribunal that when an employee is
6 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5768
completely exonerated meaning thereby that he is not
found blameworthy in the least and is not visited with
the penalty even of censure, he has to be given the
benefit of the salary of the higher post along with the
other benefits from the date on which he would have
normally been promoted but for the
disciplinary/criminal proceedings. However, there may
be cases where the proceedings, whether disciplinary
or criminal, are, for example, delayed at the instance
of the employee or the clearance in the disciplinary
proceedings or acquittal in the criminal proceedings is
with benefit of doubt or on account of non-availability
of evidence due to the acts attributable to the employee
etc. In such circumstances, the concerned authorities
must be vested with the power to decide whether the
employee at all deserves any salary for the intervening
period and if he does, the extent to which he deserves
it. Life being complex, it is not possible to anticipate
and enumerate exhaustively all the circumstances
under which such consideration may become
necessary. To ignore, however, such circumstances
when they exist and lay down an inflexible rule that in
every case when an employee is exonerated in
disciplinary/criminal proceedings he should be entitled
to all salary for the intervening period is to undermine
discipline in the administration and jeopardise public
interests. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the
Tribunal that to deny the salary to an employee would
in all circumstances be illegal. While, therefore, we do
not approve of the said last sentence in the first sub-
paragraph after clause (iii) of paragraph 3 of the said
Memorandum, viz., "but no arrears of pay shall be
payable to him for the period of notional promotion
preceding the date of actual promotion", we direct that
7 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5768
in place of the said sentence the following sentence be
read in the Memorandum:
"However, whether the officer concerned will be
entitled to any arrears of pay for the period of notional
promotion preceding the date of actual promotion, and
if so to what extent, will be decided by the concerned
authority by taking into consideration all the facts and
circumstances of the disciplinary proceeding/criminal
prosecution. Where the authority denies arrears of
salary or part of it, it will record its reasons for doing
so."
12. In the present case, the "sealed cover" procedure adopted in
the DPC meeting dated 26.07.2008 was exclusively premised on the
pendency of the departmental enquiry initiated vide charge sheet
dated 17.10.2006. It is an undisputed position that the punishment
order dated 03.09.2012 emanating from the said enquiry has been
quashed by this Court in W.P. No. 4350/2014, and the said decision
has been affirmed by the Division Bench in W.A. No. 1216/2021.
Consequently, the petitioner stands fully exonerated of the charges
that formed the basis of the sealed cover. The stigma of the charges
stands washed away, and the petitioner is restored to the position as
if proceedings were never initiated. Therefore, the impediment to
opening the sealed cover of 2008 no longer exists.
13. However, regarding the petitioner's further prayer for
promotion to the post of Chief Engineer, it is settled law that the
8 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5768
function of the Departmental Promotion Committee is within the
exclusive domain of the Executive. This Court, while exercising
jurisdiction under Article 226, cannot usurp the functions of the
DPC or the Appointing Authority, nor can it issue a positive
mandamus directing the respondents to promote the petitioner
straightaway. The direction can only be to consider the case of the
petitioner for promotion in accordance with the rules. The
Competent Authority/Review DPC must independently apply its
mind to the service record, eligibility criteria, and vacancies
applicable at the relevant time to decide the petitioner's fitness for
the post of Chief Engineer.
14. Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed with the
following directions:
(i) The impugned order dated 23.10.2024 (Annexure P/12) is
hereby quashed.
(ii) The respondents are directed to open the sealed cover of
the DPC meeting dated 26.07.2008. If the petitioner was
found fit, he shall be granted notional promotion to the post
of Superintending Engineer from the date his juniors were
promoted.
9 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5768
(iii) The respondents shall carry out notional pay fixation and
decide the grant of arrears/salary for the said post in light of
the principles laid down in the K.V. Jankiraman case.
(iv) Regarding the further promotion to the post of Chief
Engineer, and a Review DPC, the competent authority must
independently apply its mind to the service record, eligibility
criteria, and vacancies applicable at the relevant time to
decide the petitioner's fitness for the post of Chief Engineer.
(v) The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of
90 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
order.
15. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
16. Pending applications, if any, shall be disposed off accordingly.
(Jai Kumar Pillai)
Judge
hk/
