IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.: 11347/2008 Reserved on: 30.12.2010 Decided on:6.1. 2011 _____________________________________________ Parma Ram (dead) through LRs, Sunita Devi and others. …Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. and another. …Respondents. ____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioners : Mr. Keshav Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. A.G. with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. _________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. M.A. No. 488/2007 Heard. Allowed. The legal representatives of the original petitioner, as mentioned in the application, are ordered to be brought on record. The Registry is directed to carry out necessary correction in the memo of parties. The application stands disposed of. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 CWP (T) No. 11347/2008 Original petitioner Parma Ram (now deceased) was appointed as Junior Assistant in the respondent Department on 13.8.1976. He was confirmed on 10.12.1987. An FIR was registered against the original petitioner bearing FIR No.39/94 on 6.2.1994 under sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The Challan was put up against him on 9.2.1996 in the court of Judicial Magistrate Court (1), Shimla in Criminal Case No. 2 of 2002. Case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that the persons junior to him have been considered and promoted and his case has been kept in a sealed cover. 2. Mr. Keshav Thakur has strenuously argued that on the date when the Departmental Promotion Committee was convened, neither departmental proceedings nor criminal case was pending against the original petitioner and as such sealed cover procedure was not required to be followed. 3. Mr. Vinod Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that since the challan had already been put in the Court of learned Judicial 3 Magistrate Court No.1, Shimla, in FIR No. 39/1994, the sealed cover procedure has correctly been followed. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. Original petitioner was in the zone of consideration to the post of Senior Assistant. His case was considered in the month of April, 1997 by a duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee. However, his case was kept in a sealed cover. It has come in the reply that the petitioner had allegedly misappropriated a sum of Rs.16061/- when he was posted as Junior Assistant in the office of the project Officer, I.C.D.P. Ghanahatti in the year 1994. Thereafter an FIR was registered against the original petitioner on 6.2.1994, under sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The challan had already been put up in the Court on 9.2.1996. He was also summoned on 6.8.2002, as per the averments contained in the rejoinder. Since the challan had already been put up against the petitioner on 9.2.1996, sealed cover procedure has rightly been adopted by the respondent- Department. 4 6. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. However, respondents are directed to consider the case of the original petitioner by opening sealed cover, in case he has been exonerated in criminal case No. 2/2002. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 6.1. 2011. *awasthi*