The Supreme Court, in this case, addressed the issue of whether the mere grant of prosecution sanction is sufficient to withhold promotion under the sealed cover procedure when no charge sheet had been filed. The court held that sealed cover promotion is justified only after a charge memo or charge sheet is issued, as laid down in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman (1991). It affirmed the High Court's decision favoring the respondent and dismissed the Union of India's appeal.

Para 1-3: Background and Respondent's Promotions

• The respondent, an officer of the Income Tax Department, had a clean record and was granted multiple promotions until December 2001, when an FIR was filed against him for conspiracy and corruption under Section 120B IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Para 4-5: Withholding of Promotion

• In February 2007, a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was convened to consider the respondent’s promotion, but his case was kept under sealed cover as prosecution was pending against him. The respondent challenged the withholding of his promotion.

Para 6-7: Proceedings before Tribunal and High Court

• The Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, and later the Principal Bench, ruled in favor of the respondent, directing that the sealed cover be opened and the respondent be granted promotion. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, leading to the Union of India's appeal in the Supreme Court.

Para 9-14: Appellants’ Submissions (Union of India)

• The Union of India argued that the OM (Office Memorandum) of 1992 allowed sealed cover promotion when a prosecution was pending. They emphasized that the respondent's case fell under this category because prosecution sanction had been granted in 2006, and the DPC met in 2007.

Para 15-18: Respondent’s Submissions

• The respondent argued that mere grant of prosecution sanction does not qualify as "pending prosecution." The respondent emphasized that a charge sheet had not been issued before the DPC meeting, and thus, the sealed cover procedure was inapplicable.

Para 19-24: Legal Discussion and Precedent

• The court referred to Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman (1991) and subsequent OM clarifications, which clearly state that sealed cover procedure applies only after the issuance of a charge memo or charge sheet. Mere investigation or sanction for prosecution does not justify sealed cover.

Para 25-27: Conclusion

• The court held that no charge sheet was pending when the DPC met, making the sealed cover procedure inapplicable. The DPC’s action of withholding the respondent’s promotion was found unjustified, and the High Court's ruling was upheld.

Para 28-30: Opening of Sealed Cover and Final Orders

• The sealed cover was opened, and it was revealed that the DPC had found the respondent "FIT" for promotion. The court directed that consequential steps be taken accordingly, and the appeal was dismissed.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860
   • Section 120B: Criminal Conspiracy.
2. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
   • Sections 13(1) and 13(1)(d): Criminal Misconduct by a public servant.
3. Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972
   • Rule 9(6)(b)(i): Judicial proceedings and when they are deemed to have commenced.

Ratio Decidendi:

• The sealed cover procedure can only be applied once a charge memo or charge sheet is issued. Mere investigation or granting of sanction for prosecution does not justify withholding promotion under the sealed cover procedure.

Subjects:

Administrative Law, Public Service Promotions,Sealed Cover Procedure, Promotion, Government Service, Criminal Prosecution, K.V. Jankiraman Precedent, Income Tax Department, FIR, Tribunal Judgment, Supreme Court Rulings.