THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No.14768 OF 2010 ORDER: This writ petition has been instituted seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to promote the writ petitioner as Manager (Accounts) by opening the sealed cover and restore his status in the higher post with retrospective effect and with all consequential benefits. The case of the petitioner is that he is presently working as Grade-I Accountant in the Food Corporation of India from the year 2001. The next post to which a Grade-I Accountant can be promoted is to the post of Manager (Accounts) and as such he is eligible and qualified for such promotion. It is also stated that the writ petitioner is a member belonging to Scheduled Caste and hence, he is entitled to have his case considered against one such vacancy, which is reserved to a member belonging to the Scheduled Caste. A Departmental Promotion Committee (henceforth referred to as ‘the D.P.C.’) has been convened for considering the claims of the eligible Grade-I Accountants for promotion, which considered the case of the writ petitioner also along with other suitable and eligible employees and found him qualified for such promotion. Though he has been selected by the D.P.C. for such promotion, the writ petitioner was not accorded the necessary promotion, but, instead, the recommendations made by the D.P.C., have been confined to a sealed cover on the pretext that he is one of the accused persons in Crime No.159 of 2003 on the file of the VI Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts, Nampally, Hyderabad. It is stated that during the year 1998, the petitioner was elected as an Honorary Director to Vasundara Co-operative Urban Bank Limited, at the elections held on 29-08-1998. Since, he has realized that he cannot function as a Director of a Cooperative Urban Bank being an employee of the Food Corporation of India, he has resigned for the office of the Honorary Director on 15-12- 1999 and the same is also accepted by the Cooperative Department on 05-01-2000. Since 05-01-2000 onwards he was not, in any manner, associated with the Board of Directors of the aforementioned Urban Bank Limited, however, taking objection to his involvement in Crime No.159 of 2003 and his failure to bring to the notice of the employer about his arrest and detention by the local police between 05-08-2003 to 08-09-2003, the petitioner has been subjected to a disciplinary enquiry by framing three charges. The disciplinary enquiry had ended in a punishment imposed against the petitioner on 03-12- 2004 reducing his pay by three stages with cumulative effect. The period of suspension undergone by him was ordered to be counted as period spent not on duty. When he preferred an Appeal against the punishment order, the Appellate Authority passed orders on 07-11-2007 modifying the punishment to that of reduction of pay by one stage without cumulative effect. The period spent by him under suspension was also ordered to be treated as period spent on leave to which he is otherwise eligible. By virtue of this order passed by the Appellate Authority modifying the original order of punishment, the currency of the punishment period being only one year, he has already completed the same by December 2005 itself. Hence, he has become eligible to be considered for such promotion. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further pointed out that though a criminal case has been booked way back in the year 2003, so far, no charge sheet has been laid against the petitioner and hence, following the judgment of the Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA v. K.V.JANKIRAMAN[1], the recommendations of the D.P.C., in the sealed cover should be given effect to and he should be promoted. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit in the matter. It is admitted that the petitioner was working as a Grade-I Accountant from the year 2001. It is also stated that he is involved in Criminal Case No.159 of 2003 on the file of VI Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts, Nampally, Hyderabad. It is further admitted that the Appellate Authority has modified the punishment to that of reduction of pay by one stage without cumulative effect and that the modified currency of punishment is over by 02-12-2005. It is pointed out that the Central Vigilance Commission through its Circular No. 28/7/06, dated 21-07-2006, has pointed out that persons, who are involved in criminal cases shall not be promoted until they are completely exonerated and hence, the petitioner cannot be promoted. The entire question has been considered by the Supreme Court in JANKIRAMAN’S case (cited supra). In para 6 their Lordships have concluded the issue in the following manner: “The conclusion No.1 should be read to mean that the promotion etc, cannot be withheld merely because some disciplinary criminal proceedings are pending against the employee. To deny the said benefit they must be at the relevant time pending at the stage when charge-memo/charge-sheet has already been issued to the employee. Thus read, there is no inconsistency in the two conclusions.” Thus, their Lordships have subscribed and approved the reasoning of the Full Bench of the Tribunal from out of which judgment the Appeal arose. In the instant case, the petitioner’s assertion that no charge sheet has been laid against him in the criminal court, is neither controverted nor disputed. If there is no charge sheet laid against him and the currency of the punishment undergone by him has already expired, there is no further justification for denying the benefit of promotion to the petitioner. It is, therefore, appropriate that the respondents should be directed to open the sealed cover and give effect to it by promoting the petitioner immediately as Manager (Accounts), provided the D.P.C., found him suitable for such promotion. As to whether the petitioner should have been promoted with retrospective effect, namely, the date on which the person whose name is included immediately down below his name in the panel of names approved by the D.P.C., can be resolved only after he is exonerated of the charge, if at all that would be laid in the criminal court. As at present advised, since there was no charge sheet laid against the petitioner in the criminal court, he is bound to be promoted by giving effect to the recommendations contained in the sealed cover. It is needless to observe that depending upon the outcome of Criminal Case No.159 of 2003, on the file of the VI Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts, Nampally, Hyderabad, appropriate action can be regulated by the respondents. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J mrk 2nd September 2010 [1] AIR 1991 SC 2010