UNION OF INDIA

KEWAL KUMAR

APRIL 12. 1993

[, J.S. VERMA AND S.C. AGRA WAL, JJ.]

Ciri! Service: Promotion-Sealed corer procedure by D.P.C- Legality of.

The D.P.C. met on 23.1L1989 fur considering the respondent c and some others for promotion to the Senior Administratile Grade.

In l'iew of the fact that the decision to initiate disciplinarj proceedings against the respondent for imposition of major penalty was taken b_\' the competent authorit)· on 20.11. 1989, the D.P. C

D followed the sealed co\er procedure. On the basis of a F.l.R. registered b)· the C.B.I. on 30.9.1988, the decision to initiate disciplinar_\' proceeding was taken b_\' the compdent authorit_\· on 20.11.1989 though the F.I.R. was receiwd b_\' it on 31.5.1989. The charge sheet was issued to the respondent on l.8.1990.

The respondent challenged before the Central Administrati\'e Tribunal. the-action of the D.P.C. to follow the sealed co\'er procedure in his case.

The Trihunal allowed respondent's application holding that the F sealed co, er procedure could not be followed in \'iew of the decision in U11fo11 of India and Others v. K. V. Ja11kirama11 and Others. [l 99IJ 4 sec 109.

In this appeal hy special lea\'e the Union of India <JUestioned the decision of the Tribunal ..

Allowing the appeal, this Court,

HELD: 1.1. Thesealed co\'er procedure is attracted eYen when

<_;

a. 'decision has heen taken to initiate disciplinar_\' proceedings', or H

Sl1PRB1E COL'RT REPORTS

[199313 S.C.R.

A 'decision to accord sanction for prosecution is taken' or 'criminal prosecution is launched or .........• decision to accord sanction for prosecution is taken'. (48-G)

t.2. When the competent authorit)· takes the decision to initiate a disciplinarJ proceeding or steps are taken for launching a criminal prosecution against the go\'ernment senant, he cannot be ghen the promotion, unless exonerated, ~, en if the government senant is recommended for promotion h)· the D.P.C., being found suitable otherwise. (48-H, 49-A)

C 1.3. In a case like the present. where the First Information Report was registered hJ the Central Bureau of ln\'estigation, an.d on that hasis the decision had been taken h)' the competent authorit)· to initiate disciplinarJ proceedings for imposition of major penalt)' on the respondent prior to the meeting of the D.P.C., the applicahilit)· of D the sealed co\er procedure cannot he doubted. (49-B)

J.4 The formulation of the charges required for implementing the decision of the competent authorit)· to initiate the disciplimtr)' proceedings, is satisfied in SU('h a case h)' the recording of the First Information Report h)' the Central Bureau of Investigation which records the allegations against the respondent, and provides the basis fordisciplinar)' procedings. The requisite formulation of the charges, in such a case. is no longer nebulous, being crystalised in the F.l.R. itself and, therefore, e\en if the chargesheet was issued b)' its despatch to the respondent suhsequent to the meeting of the D.P.C. this fact F alone cannot benefit the respondent: ( 49-C-D)

1.5. The question to examine in each case, is: whether, th~ decision to initiate the discipl, inary proceedings had been taken or steps for criminal prosecution initiated before the date on which the

D.P.C. made the selection? The decision would depend on the. facts of the case. keeping in \'iew the object sought to he achie\'ed by adopting the sealed co\'er procedure. (49-E)

1.6. It would he incongruous to hold that, in a case like the present, where the C.B.I. had recorded the F.I.R.; sent the same to the H superior authorities of the respondent for taking necessary action;

' i

...

UNIO:-< OF INDIA"· KEWAL KUMAR [VERMA. J .. ) 47

and the competent authority had taken the decision, on the basis of the A F.l.R., to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the respondent for imposition of major penalty, there can be any doubt that the sealed cover procedure is attracted to avoid promoting the respondent, unless exonerated of those charges. (49-F)

B Union of India and Other v. K. V. Jankiraman and Ors .. [1991] 4 SCC I 09; Del lzi Development Authority v. H. C Khurana. C.A. No. 1240 of 1993-D/-7.4.1993, referred to. (5.1-B)

l.7. Clause (iv) of the office Memorandum No.22011/2/.86-ESst (A) dated 12.1.1988 relates to 'Government servants against whom an C investigation on serious allegations of corruption, bribery or similar grave misconduct is in progress either by the CBI or any other agency' departmental or otherwise.' The fact that the F.I.R. was registered by the C.B.I., and on communication of the same to the departmental superiors a decision had been taken to initiate disciplinary proceed- D ings for imposition of a major penalty, against the respondent in the present case, brings this case squarely within the ambit of clause (iv) of the guidelines, in addition to clause (ii), there of. (50-

C-D)

CIVILAPPELLATEJURISDICTIONCivilAppealNo.1584of E 1993.

From the Judgment and Order dated 14.8.1992 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in 0.A. No. 2737 of 1991.

V.R. Reddy, Addi. Solicitor General, R. Sasiprabhu and V.K.

Vernia (NP) for the Appellant.

S.K. Gupta. R.K. Kamal and B.S. Gupta for the Respondent.

The judgment of the Court was delivered by

VERMA; J. : The respondent, kewal Kumar, was Deputy Chief Electrical Engineer, Northern Railway at New Delhi when the Departmental Promotion Committee (D.P.C.) met on 23.11.1989 for consid- H

48 SlJPRE:vtE COURT REPORTS

I 199313 S.C.R.

A ering the respondent and some others for promotion to the Senior Administrative Grade. The D.P.C. followed the scaled cover proce-· dure in the case of the respondent, in view of the fact that the decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him for imposition of major penalty had been taken by the competent authority earlier.on 20.11.1989.

The decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings was taken on the basis B of a First Information Report (F.l.R.) registred on 30.9.1988 by the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.8.1.) which was received by the concerned departmental authorities on 31.5.1989. Even though the . decision was so taken on 20. l l. l <)89 on the basis of the f.I.R. made much earli..:r, the chargesheet was actually issued to the respondent on c 1.8.1990. The respondent challenged before the Central Adrninistrati vc Tribunal. Principal Bench, New Delhi. the action of the IJ.P.C. to follow the sealed cover procedure in his case. The Tribunal has accepted the respondent's claim and allowed his application holding that the sealed cover procedure ('.OUld not be followed in view of the decision in U11io11 of/11dia and Otliers v .. K. V. .lankiraman and 01/ters.

D 11 '>9 l] 4 SCC I 09. The Union of India has challenged that decision by special leave, in this appeal.

The question in the present case, is : whether the decision in

Ja11kirama11 was correctly applied in the present situation? In E .la11kirama11 itself. it has been pointed out that the sealed cover procedure is to be followed where a government servant is recommended for promotion by the D.P.C. .. but before he is ac.tually promoted if 'he is either placed umkr suspension or disciplinary proceedings are taken against him or a decision has been taken to F initiate proceedings or criminal prosecution is launched or sanction for

such prosecution has been issued or decision to accord such sanction is taken. Thus. the seakd cov..:r procedure is attracted even when a decision has been taken to initiate disciplinary proceedings, or 'decision !9. ~cord sanction for Prosecution is taken' or 'criminal prosecution is launhed or ......... decision to accord sanction for prosecution is G taken'. The object of following the sealed cover procedure has been

indicated recently in the decision in Civil Appeal No. 1240 of J 993- Dclhi De1efapme111 Aut/1oriry v .. H.C. K/wrana-pronounced on April

7. I 993. and need not be reiterated

H It is obvious that \vhen the competent authority takes the decision

.....

.......... -r

. .--------------------- ------ -., .. :,,-.-,.. '.'\ . ,' •. ~. ', _,__ /·,:. - ' .-r l!NIO:-; OF INDIA ,:; KEWAL KUMAR (VERMA. I .• (

--.. '- . -

- . , . ' .

. I .

- ' , . '\ ·.' \ .- . . . . ._ -

to initiate a disciplinary proceeding or steps are taken. foclaunching a . A criminal prosecution against the government servant,

0he cannot be ' - ' --. . \ . given .the promotion, un1ess exonerated, even if the government servant is recommended for promotion by the D.P.C .• being found . .

I . - suitable otherwise. In a case like the present, where the First lnformation ltcport was registered by the.Central Bureau of Investigation."and . on that basis the decision had been taken by the competent authority to B

i 11i1iate disciplinary proceedings for imposition of major penalty on the respondent priorio the meeting of the D.P.C.. the applicability of the sealed cover pocedure cannot be .doubted. The formulation of the , harges required for implementing the decision of the competent authority to initiate the disciplinary proceedings. is satisfied in such a c. case by the recording of the First Information Report by the Central Bureau of Investigation which records the allegations against the. respondent, and provides the basis for disciplinary proceedings. The ·. requisite formulation of tlic charges, in °SUCh

a case, is no longer . nebulous, being crystallised in the F.l.R. itself and", therefore, everi if . ·. . . . . ...

D the chargesheet was issued by its despatch to the respondent subsequent to the meeting of the D.P.C .• this fact alone cannot benefit the respondent.

_.-,--

The question to examine in each case, is : Whethe.r, the decision to initiate the disciplinary proceedings had been taken or steps for E criminal prosecution initiated before the date on which the D.P.C: made the selection? TI1e decision would depend on the facts of the case, keeping in view the object sought to be. achieved by adopting the scaled cover procedure. It would be incongruous to hold that, in a case like the present, where the C.B.I. had recorded the F.l.R.; sentthesame F to the superior. authorities of the respondent for taking necessary action; and the competent authority had taken the decision, on the basis of the F.l.R., to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the respondent forhnposition of major penalty, there can be any doubt that the sealed cover procedure is attracted to avoid prom9ting the respondent, unless exonerated of those charges. These facts, which led to the adoption of G the sealed cover procedure, are undoubtedly very material to adjudge

the suitability of a person for promotion to a higher post. A decision to

follm~ "the. sealed cover procedure in these circumstances cannot, iherefore, be faulted ..

SLTPREME COURT REPORTS

(1993) 3 S.C.R.

lt is unnecessary in the present case to discuss at length the decision inJankiraman to indicate its inapplicability to the respondent, since it has been done in the recent decision in Civil Appeal No.1240 of l 993-DelhiDevelopment Authority v .. H. C. Khurana-pronounced on April 7, 1993.

We may also advert to another aspect of this case. In Para 2 of the office Memorandum No. 22011/2/86-Estt. (A) dated 12. l. l988issued by the Department of Personnel & training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government oflndia, on the subject of procedure and guidelines to be followed in such cases, indicating the C situations in which the sealed cover procedure is to be followed, clause

(iv) specifies another category. Clause (iv) relates to 'Government servants against whom an investigation on serious allegations of corruption, bribery or similar grave misconduct is in progress either by the CBI or any other agency, departmental or otherwise.' The fact that

0 the F.l.R. was registered by the C.B.I., and on communication of the

same to the departmental superiors a decision had been taken to initiate disciplinary proceedings for imposition of a major penalty, against the respondent in the present case, brings this case squarely within the ambit of clause (iv) of the guidelines, in addition to clause (ii), thereof .

E • Following of the sealed cover procedure in the present case was, therefore, fully justified and the Tribunal commied an error in interfering with that action of the Government.

Consequently, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order of the F Tribunal is set aside, resulting in dismissal of the respondent's application made to the Tribunal. No costs.

V.P.R.

Appeal allowed.