IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 2572 of 2008. Decided on: 11.5.2010. __________________________________________________ Satpal Singh Rana … Petitioner. Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and ors. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. Advocate General. For respondent No.4 : Nemo. ___________________________________________________________ V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral). The petitioner has filed and maintained the present petition for the grant of the following relief: “That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case explained above, it is submitted that respondents may very kindly be directed to quash and set aside the orders, Annexures A-1 and A-2, qua the applicant, thereby directing the respondents to promote the applicant instead of R-4, with further directions to the respondents to pay the arrears of pay of the suspension period and also to give proficiency increments to the applicant forthwith and further that applicant may very kindly be ordered to be promoted along with other persons as contained in Annexure A-2 with all consequential benefits to secure the ends of law and justice.” 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2. In brief, facts of the case may be stated thus: 3. The petitioner at the material time, that is, on the date of filing of the petition (27.6.1998) was working as Extension Officer, Industries in the Block Development Office, Una, District Una, HP. It emerges from the record that two criminal cases were registered against him in 1983 and 1989. Soon after registration of the first case, he was placed under suspension. However, suspension was later on revoked, vide order dated 31.7.1984. In one of the cases, he was the sole accused and in the other, he was co-accused along with one S.M. Katwal, the then Director, Industries, Himachal Pradesh. Both the cases related to embezzlement of Government funds. The case in which the petitioner was the sole accused was tried by the learned Special Judge, Hamirpur, HP and the trial ultimately ended in his acquittal, vide judgment dated 8.2.1994. The State carried the matter in appeal to this Court, but unsuccessfully and the appeal ultimately came to be dismissed, vide judgment dated 24.7.1998. 4. These aspects of the matter are borne out of the averments set up in the petition as also the reply to the same filed on behalf of the official-respondents and further from supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 by Ms. Upma Chawdhry, the then Director of Industries, Himachal Pradesh, dated 21.4.2003, which is available at page 75 of the paper book. It is stated in this affidavit that the State was not preferring any appeal against the judgment, dated 24.7.1998 of this Court to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the matter has been finally closed. This factual matrix is also admitted to be 3 correct by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3. It being so, so far as the first case against the petitioner is concerned, the matter stands finally decided by the Courts of law. 5. Now, while adverting to the second case, it would be seen that even as per averments set up on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3, vide para 3 (i, ii & iii) of their reply at page 2, this case was put in the Court of the learned Special Judge, Chandigarh on 30.1.1989. However, the travesty of the matter is that whereabouts of this case are not known. This inference is deducible from the various status reports submitted by respondents No. 1 to 3 by way of supplementary affidavits, the latest having been filed today itself, paras 1 to 3 whereof are to the following effect: “1. That the above mentioned Civil Writ Petition came up before this Hon’ble High Court on 30.03.2010 and the Hon’ble Court was pleased to pass the following order: ‘Though affidavit in terms of order dated 21st December, 2009 has been filed, yet the same is not conclusive. It being so, further time for filing supplementary affidavit, disclosing in unequivocal terms the status of the criminal case pending against the petitioner, if any, be filed within three weeks from today, positively, failing which the petition shall be heard and finally disposed of in accordance with law. It is represented at the bar on behalf of the petitioner that no such criminal case is pending against him. It being so, the petitioner may also in the meantime file an affidavit to this effect. List on 24th April, 2010.’ 4 2. That in order to comply with the order dated 30.03.2010 passed by this Hon’ble Court, the matter was taken up with Sh. M.S. Dhillon, Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Chandigarh vide letter dated 6.4.2010 to obtain the latest status of the case RC No. 7/83-CIU(E)/1 against the petitioner pending adjudication in the Special Judge, Chandigarh. A copy of the letter is annexed as Annexure R-1C. The Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Chandigarh vide letter dated 8.4.2010 informed that an application was filed before District Court for revival of complaint and the same was marked to the court of Ld. Additional District & Sessions Judge. The same came up before the court on 1.4.2010. After going through the case, the same has been marked to the office for status of the complaint as on date. The copy of the letter dated 8.4.2010 is annexed as Annexure R-2C. 3. That the deponent against requested Sh. M.S. Dhillon, Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Chandigarh vide letter dated 19.4.2010 to supply the latest status of the case RC No. 7/83-CIU(C )/I in unequivocal terms to file the supplementary affidavit in accordance with the directions issued by this Hon’ble Court. The copy of the letter dated 19.4.2010 is annexed as Annexure R-3C. In response to the above communication, the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Chandigarh vide letter dated 22.4.2010 has enclosed a copy of letter dated 22.4.2010 received from Sh. Sanjay Goyal, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel stating that an application seeking revival of the complaint has been duly filed before the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chandigarh and the same has been maraked to 5 the Ahlmad of the Court for reporting the matter on the application. The said application again came up before the court on 22.4.2010. The Hon’ble Court has adjourned the matter for 4.5.2010 as the report is still awaited. As and when the report is submitted, the department shall be accordingly informed. The copy of the letter dated 22.4.2010 is annexed as Annexure R- 4C.” 6. Thus, it is manifest that even the record of the second case registered against the petitioner as far back as on 30.1.1989 said to have been filed in the Court of the learned Special Judge, Chandigarh is not traceable, what to say of any charge having been framed against the petitioner for the alleged imputation/allegation of embezzlement of Government funds. 7. It shall be pertinent to notice at this stage that owing to the aforesaid second case said to have been registered against the petitioner, he was though considered for promotion to the post of Economic Investigator in the year 1998, but the outcome of the proceedings carried out by the Departmental Promotion Committee was not made known and instead ‘sealed cover procedure’ was adopted with the rider that promotion of the candidate junior to the petitioner would be subject to outcome of the criminal case registered against the petitioner. 8. Against the above back drop, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits by placing reliance upon an authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported as Union of India etc. etc. versus K.V. Jankiraman etc. etc., AIR 1991 Supreme Court 2010 that ‘sealed cover procedure’ can be 6 resorted to only after charge memo/charge sheet is issued to the employee and not at the stage of preliminary investigation prior to that stage. 9. In the present case admittedly no departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. As already noticed, in the first criminal case registered against him, he had already been acquitted way back on 8.2.1994 and the judgment of acquittal has since attained finality. 10. The fate of the second criminal case said to have been registered against the petitioner along with the aforesaid co-accused on 30.1.1989 is not known. A period of more than 21 years has elapsed since then. This type of state of affairs cannot be allowed to persist indefinitely and more so, when no fault can be found with the petitioner for the same. 11. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of with the following directions to respondents No. 1 to 3 to be implemented within three months from today: i) The petitioner shall be paid difference between the subsistence allowance paid to him during the period of suspension and the pay and allowances to which he was actually entitled during the said period had he not been placed under suspension; ii) He shall also be granted the benefit of proficiency increments etc. due to him from time to time in accordance with law; and iii) The ‘sealed cover procedure’ adopted at the time of consideration of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Economic Investigator by the Departmental Promotion Committee 7 held on 12.6.1998 shall be opened forthwith and further action taken in the matter in accordance with law. 12. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms. 13. In view of disposal of the main petition, pending CMPs, if any, shall also stand disposed of as infructuous. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. May 11, 2010. (cr)