IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8251 of 2009 BRAJESH KUMAR, son of Sri Jagdish Paswan, resident of Linepar Mirzapur, Nawadah, P.S.- Nawadah, Town and District- Nawadah (Bihar), at present Manager (General), F.C.I. D.O., Gaya, PS & District- Gaya :--- Petitioner. . Versus 1. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA through its Managing Director, Headquarters, Khadya Sadan, 16-20, Barahkhamba Lane, New Delhi- 110001. 2. Joint Manage-cum-Executive Director (East), Food Corporation of India, Office of the Zonal Manager (East), 10A Middleton Row, Calcutta-71. 3. Zonal Manager (East), Food Corporation of India, 10A Middleton Row, Calcutta-71. 4. 4. Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Exhibition Road, Patna-1. 5. General Manager (Region), Food Corporation of India, 6. Regional Office, Patna :-- Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner :- Mr. D.K.Sinha, Senior Advocate & Mr. Vijay Anand, Advocate. For the Corporation : Mr. Prabhakar Tekriwal, Advocate. ====== 5. 01.12.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the “Corporation”). 2. Petitioner, who is serving as Manager in the Corporation, has filed this writ application for a direction to the authorities of the Corporation to consider his case for promotion on the post of Assistant General Manager as the consideration made for such promotion on 08.10.2007, so far petitioner is concerned, has been kept in the sealed cover and his other junior colleagues have been so promoted. In this connection, it is pointed out that petitioner was served with a notice dated 30.04.2007 that action is likely to be taken against him under Rule 60 of the F.C.I. Regulations i.e. for awarding minor punishment. Later, petitioner was served with remarks for the year, 2002 under intimation dated 18.10.2007 against which he filed representation dated 19.10.2007 which was rejected under communication dated 06.05.2009. The aforesaid proceeding for minor punishment under order dated 07.04.2008 was converted into one under Rule 58 of the F.C.I. Regulations and after conclusion of the said proceeding petitioner has been awarded punishment of censure which is evident from the counter affidavit but counsel for the petitioner states that till date petitioner has not been served with copy of order imposing such - 2 - punishment. Petitioner has a remedy of appeal against the punishment of censure which he is at liberty to avail as and when the order imposing punishment of censure is served on him. For the present this Court has to consider as to whether the sealed cover containing the recommendation dated 08.10.2007 should be opened or not. From the facts pleaded in the writ petition as also in the counter affidavit and noted above it appears that on the date of consideration i.e. 08.10.2007 neither charge memo initiating departmental proceeding stood served on the petitioner nor he was made accused in a criminal case in which charges were framed against him. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.V. Jankiraman, reported in A.I.R. 1991 Supreme Court 2010 the recommendation for promotion of only those who have either been subjected to memo of charge in the departmental proceeding or against whom charges have been framed in a criminal case, can be kept in a sealed cover. In the circumstances, as on date of consideration i.e. 08.10.2007 petitioner was neither an accused in a criminal case in which charges were framed nor any charge-memo initiating disciplinary proceeding under Rule 58 of the F.C.I. Regulations was served on him, in my opinion, the authorities were not authorized to keep the recommendation made in his case in the sealed cover. 3. Accordingly, I direct that the sealed cover containing the recommendation dated 08.10.2007 be opened forthwith and order passed as per the recommendation of the D.P.C., kept in the sealed cover. The effect of punishment of censure shall be subject to the result of the appeal as and when taken by the petitioner. 4. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)