http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: KEWAI, KUMAR

DATE OF JUDGMENT12/04/1993

BENCH: VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J) BENCH: VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J) AGRAWAL, S.C. (J)

CITATION:  1993 AIR 1585            1993 SCR  (3)  45  1993 SCC  (3) 204        JT 1993 (2)   705  1993 SCALE  (2)551

ACT: Civil  Service:  Promotion-Sealed cover-  procedure   D.P.C- Legality-

HEADNOTE: The D.P.C. met on 23.11.1989 for considering the  respondent and  some others for promotion to the Senior  Administrative Grade. In   view  of  the  fact  that  the  decision  to   initiate disciplinary   proceedings   against  the   respondent   for imposition  of  major  penalty was taken  by  the  competent authority  on  20.11. 1989, the D.P. C followed  the  sealed cover  procedure.On the basis of a F.I.R. registered by  the C.B.1.  on 30.9.1988, the decision to initiate  disciplinary proceeding   was  taken  by  the  competent   authority   on 20.11.1989   though  the  F.I.R.  was  received  by  it   on 31.5.1989.The  charge sheet was issued to the respondent  on 1.8.1990. The respondent challenged before the Central  Administrative Tribunal.  the-action  of the D.P.C. to  follow  the  sealed cover procedure in his case. The  Tribunal allowed respondent’s application holding  that the sealed cover procedure could not be followed in view  of the  decision  in  Union  of India  and  Others;  v.  K.  V. Jankiraman and Others. [1991] 4 SCC 109. In  this  appeal  by  special  leave  the  Union  of   India questioned the decision of the Tribunal.. Allowing the appeal, this Court, HELD: 1.1. The sealed cover procedure is attracted even when a   ’decision  has  been  taken  to  initiate   disciplinary proceedings’ or 46 ’decision  to accord sanction for prosecution is  taken’  or ’criminal  prosecution is launched or.......... decision  to accord sanction for prosecution is taken’. (48-G) 1.2. When  the  competent authority takes  the  decision  to initiate  a disciplinary, proceeding or steps are taken  for launching  a  criminal prosecution  against  the  government servant,   he   cannot  be  given  the   promotion,   unless exonerated,  even it’ the government servant is  recommended for   promotion  hi,  the  D.P.C..  being   found   suitable

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

otherwise. (48-H, 49-A) 1.3. In a case like the present. where the First Information Report   was   registered   by   the   Central   Bureau   of Investigation,  and  (on that basis the  decision  had  been taken  by the competent authority to  initiate  disciplinary proceedings   for  imposition  of  major  penalty   on   the respondent   prior  to  the  meeting  of  the  D.P.C.,   the applicability  of  the  sealed  cover  procedure  cannot  he doubted. (49-B) 1.4  The   formulation   of   the   charges   required   for implementing  the  decision of the  competent  authority  to initiate the disciplinary proceedings. is satisfied in  such a  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 the  charges, in such a case. is no longer  nebulous.  being crystalised in the F.I.R. itself and, therefore. even if the chargesheet  was  issued by its despatch to  the  respondent subsequent  to  the meeting (if the D.P.C. this  fact  alone cannot benefit the respondent. (49-C-1)) 1.5. The question to examine in each case, is: whether,  the decision  to initiate the disciplinary 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 view  the object  sought to be achieved by adopting the  sealed  cover procedure. (49-E) 1.6. It  would be 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 superior authorities of the respondent  for taking necessary action 47 and  the competent authority had taken the decision, on  the basis  of the F.I.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) Union of India and Other v. K. V. Jankiraman and Ors. [1991] 4  SCC  109; Delhi Development Authority v.  H.  C  Khurana. C.A. No. 1240 of 1993-D/-7.4.1993, referred to. (51-B) 1.7. Clause (iv) of the office Memorandum No.22011/2/86-Esst (A)  dated 12.1.1988 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 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 proceedings for imposition of a major penalty, against the respondent in the  present  case, bring--. this case squarely  within  the ambit  of  clause  (iv) of the guidelines,  in  addition  to clause (II), there of. (50C-D)

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No. 1584 of 1993. From  the Judgment and Order dated 14.8.1992 of the  Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in  O.A. No. 2737 of 1991. V.R. Reddy, Addl.  Solicitor General, R. Sasiprabhu and V.K. Verma (NP) for the Appellant. S.K. Gupta.  R.K. Kamal and B.S. Gupta for the Respondent.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

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- 48 ering  the respondent and some others for promotion to  tile Senior Administrative Grade.  The D.P.C. followed the scaled cover  procedure 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  of’  a  First   Information   Report(F.I.R) registered   on   30.9.1988  by  tile  Central   Bureau   of Investigation (C.B.I.) which was received by tile  concerned departmental  authorities  oil 31.5.1989. Even  though  tile decision was so taken oil 20.1 1.1989 on tile basis of  ’the F.I.R.  made  much earlier, the  charge-sheet  was  actually issued  to  the  respondent  on  1.8.1990.   The  respondent challenged  before  the  Central  Administrative   Tribunal. Principal  Bench.   New Delhi the action of  the  D.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  could not  he followed in view of the decision in Union  of  India and  Others v. K.V. Janakiraman and others [1991] 4 SCC  109 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 Jankiraman  was correctly applied in the present  situation" fit  Jankiraman   itself, it his been pointed out  halt  the sealed cover procedure is to he followed where a  government servant  is  recommended for promotion by the    D.P.C.  but before lie is actually promoted if he is either placed under suspension or disciplinary proceedings are taken against him or  a  decision has been taken to   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 sealed  cover  procedure  is attracted  even when a decision has been taken  to  initiate disciplinary proceedings, or decision to accord sanction for prosecution  is taken  or criminal  prosecution  is launched or.........  decision to accord sanction for prosecution  is taken.   The object of following the sealed cover  procedure has been indicated recently in the decision in Civil  Appeal No.  1240  of  1993Delhi  Development  Authority,  v..  H.C. Khurana-pronounced on April 7.     1993.  and  need  not  be reiterated It  is obvious that when the competent authority  takes  the decision 49 to initiate a disciplinary proceeding or steps are taken for launching  a  criminal prosecution  against  the  government servant,   he   cannot  be  given  the   promotion,   unless exonerated,  even if the government servant  is  recommended for promotion by the D.P.C., being found suitable  otherwise In  a  case like the present, where  the  First  information Report   was   registered   by   the   Central   Bureau   of Investigation,and on that basis the decision had been  taken by   the   competent  authority  to   initiate   deciplinary proceedings   for  imposition  of  major  penalty   on   the respondent   prior  to  the  meeting  of  the  D.P.C.,   the applicability  of  the  sealed  cover  procedure  cannot  be doubted.   The  formulation  of  the  charges  required  for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

implementing  the  decision of the  competent  authority  to initiate the disciplinary proceedings. is satisfied in  such a  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 the  charges, in such a case, is no longer  nebulous,  being crystallised  in the F.I.R. itself and , therefore, even  if the   charge-sheet  was  issued  by  its  despatch  to   the respondent  subsequent  to the meeting of the  D.P.C.,  this fact alone cannot benefit tile respondent. The  question  to examine in each case, is  :  Whether,  the decision  to initiate the disciplinary 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 view  the object  sought to be achieved by adopting the  sealed  cover procedure.  It would be incongruous to hold that, in a  case like  the present, where the B.I. had recorded  the  F.I.R.; sent the same 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.I.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.   These facts,  which  led  to  the adoption  of  the  sealed  cover procedure,  are  undoubtedly very material  to  adjudge  the suitability  of a person for promotion to a higher post.   A decision  to  follow  the sealed cover  procedure  in  these circumstances cannot, therefore, be faulted. 50 It  is unnecessary in the present case to discuss at  length the decision in Jankiraman to indicate its in  applicability to  the  respondent, since it has been done  in  the  recent decision in Civil Appeal No. 1240 of 1993-Delhi  Development 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 12.1.1988 issued by the Department of Personnel &  training, Ministry  of  Personnel,  Public  Grievances  and  Pensions, Government  of  India,  on  the  subject  of  procedure  and guidelines  to  be followed in such  cases,  indicating  the situations  in  which the scaled 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  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 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. Following of the sealed cover procedure in the present  case was,  therefore, fully justified and the Tribunal  committed an error in interfering with that action of the Government. Consequently,  the appeal is allowed, the impugned order  of the  Tribunal  is set aside, resulting in dismissal  of  the respondent’s application made to the Tribunal.  No costs. V.P.R. Appeal allowed. 51

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5