IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No. 16270 OF 2011 Between: B.Balaya ..... Petitioner AND The Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, The Central Board of Excise and Customs, North Block, New Delhi – 11 and another .....Respondents The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (per THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMAD) The Writ Petitioner, who retired as Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, filed OA No. 278 of 2010 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, to call for the records relating to the D.P.C. for the relevant period and to examine his case in the light of instructions and to grant promotion to him to the grade of Joint Commissioner apart from consequential benefits, which was dismissed by the Tribunal. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. It is case of the petitioner that though he was qualified for promotion to the post of Joint Commissioner, the respondents did not consider his case and when he got issued legal notice on 18.12.2009, his claim was negatived by order dated 8.2.2010 observing that the Review DPC which met on 7.3.2005 of the DPC held on 20.12.2003, assessed his case on the basis of the ACRs and found him unfit as he did not meet the prescribed benchmark. In yet another DPC, which met on 24.5.2005, he was again adjudged as unfit. Admittedly, the petitioner retired from service on 30.04.2005 and on the date of his retirement, he was served with a charge Memo. As can be seen from the facts, before his retirement, twice his case had come up for consideration before the D.P.C. and on both the occasions, his case was considered and adjudged as unfit for promotion. The O.A. is filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, in the year 2010 i.e. after five years of the rejection of his case for being considered for promotion. The contention of the petitioner that sealed cover procedure was not adopted in his case, was well considered by the Tribunal and has rightly held that the sealed cover procedure would be adopted when an employee is considered for promotion during pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, but as he was considered for promotion prior to the issuance of charge memo itself i.e. on 30.4.2005, on which date he retired, the question of adopting sealed cover procedure does not arise. Having gone through the order impugned, we do not find any illegality warranting interference. Consequently, the Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ Justice Ghulam Mohammed ________________ Justice K.G.Shankar June 15, 2011 MAS