IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1036 of 2010 1. Food Corporation Of India through the Managing Director, Headquarters, Khadya Sadan, 16-20, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi -110001 2. Joint Manager-cum-Executive Directror (East), Food Corporation of India, Office of the Zonal Manager (East), 10 A Middleton Row, Calcutta -71 3. Zonal Manager (East), Food Corporation of India, 10 A Middleton Row, Calcutta -71 4. Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Exhibition Road, Patna -1 5. General Manager (Region) Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Patna... Respondents/Appellants Versus Brajesh Kumar son of Sri Jagdish Paswan, resident of Linepar Murzapur, Nawadah, PS Nawadah, Town and District Nawadah (Bihar) at present Manager (General), FCI, DO, Gaya, PS & District Gaya ..... Petitioner/Respondent ----------- 06- 29/6/2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellants, and Mr. Vijay Anand for the respondents. Respondent no.1 of CWJC No. 8251 of 2009 (Brajesh Kumar vs. Food Corporation of India & Ors.), has preferred this appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature of Patna, and is aggrieved by the order dated 1.12.2009, whereby the sealed cover with respect to promotion of the respondent herein (the writ petitioner) has been directed to be opened subject to the punishment of censure to him. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the appeal may be indicated. The respondent herein is a Manager in the services of the Corporation. 2 Show-cause notice was issued to him with a view to award minor penalty against him. He was ultimately awarded the punishment of censure. It is relevant to state that the respondent (the writ petitioner) took the stand in the writ proceeding that the order of censure had not been served on him and he could not, therefore, prefer departmental appeal against the same. In the meanwhile, the question of promotion arose, the respondent’s case was considered, and it was kept in a sealed cover. The respondent preferred the present writ petition for a direction that, in the circumstances of the case, there is no justification for the sealed cover procedure which may be set at naught and he may be directed to be promoted to the next higher post with effect from the date his junior has been promoted. The writ petition has been allowed and it has been held that there is no justification of sealed cover in the present case which may be opened and his case for promotion may be considered in accordance with the recommendation of the D.P.C., as contained in the sealed cover subject to the punishment of censure. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the 3 parties. It appears to us that no departmental proceeding, nor criminal case, was pending on 8.10.2007, the date on which the D.P.C. met and sealed-.cover procedure was followed. In such a situation, there cannot be justification for sealed cover procedure. The learned counsel for the respondent has rightly relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in Union of India v. K V Jankiraman (AIR 1991 SC 2010). In that view of the matter, we agree with the order of the learned Single Judge directing the Corporation to open the sealed cover and take the case of the respondent’s promotion in accordance with law subject of course to the punishment of censure or such other materials on record against the respondent. We agree with the order of the learned Single Judge. 4. The appeal is dismissed. ( S K Katriar ) ( Amaresh Kumar Lal ) mrl