DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus H.C. KHURANA

Citation: [1993] 2 S.C.R. 1033 · Decided: 14-09-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

IL· 
/ 
.. _.' 
\ 
I 
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 
v .. 
H.C. KHURANA 
. ' 
APRIL 7, 1993 
(J.S. VERMA AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.) 
Civil Services. 
Civil servanl-;l'romotion-0.M. Nos.-Dated Ja11uary 12, 19sS and 
September 14, 1992-Rationale belti11d OMs explained-'Sealed cover proce-
duret...:Applicabi/ity lo government servant~iether actual sen·ice of charge 
sheet nece.•sary. 
Wordr and phrases-'lssue of Chargesheet'-Meaning of. 
A 
B 
c 
The respondent who was employed as an Executive Engineer In the 
DDA-ap~liant was served on 6.11.85 a preliminary memo alleging Ir• D 
regularities committed by him in the construction works, and that they 
were being investigated. On 11.7.90 a chargesheet was framed on the basis 
of these irregularities, and on 13.7.90 the cbargesheet was despatched for 
being served on him •. The respondent, however, proceeded on two monihs 
medical leave and, therefore, on 17.7.90 another Executive Engineer work-
E 
log In the same Wing as the respondent, received it and gave intimation 
that the respondent was on leave and adding the same would be handed 
over to the respondent on his return from leave. 
· 
. 
A Departmental Promotion Committee met 011 28.11.90, and lo view 
of the earlier decision to Initiate disciplinary proceedings against the 
respondent, It followed the 'sealed cover procedure' In the case of the 
respondent. . 
· 
F 
Efforts to effect personal service of the chargesheet on the resjloli· 
dent iln account of his non-availabiiity continued and the same could be G 
served personally on him only on 25.1.91. As a result of the selection made 
by the D.P.C. certain persons were promoted lo the post of Superintending 
· - Engineer, while the respondent's ·matter was kept in abeyance to await tlie 
result of the disciplinary proceedings. 
The respondent filed a 1ttit petition In the High Court for a writ of ' H 
1033 
• 
1034 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1993] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
mandamu~ directing the DDA to promote him as Superintending En· 
gineer with effect from the date on which his juniors had been promoted 
to the said post on the basis of the selection by the D.P.C. 
B 
The High Court allowed the writ petition relying on Union of India 
and Others v. KV. Jankiraman and Others, (1991] 4 SCC 109, and taking 
the view that the framing of charge would carry with it the duty to issue 
and serve the same on the employee, that there was no justification for the 
DDA to follow the sealed cover procedure in this case on 28.11.91 when the 
Departmental Promotion Committee met since actual service of the char· 
gesheet was made only after the date on which the D.P.C. met. Accordingly, 
C the High Court directed the DDA to open the sealed cover, and to promote 
the respondent as Superintending Engineer if otherwise found suitable by 
the D.P.C., and to give him seniority and all consequential benefits from 
the date on which his juniors were so promoted. 
The DD A-appellant challenged the aforesaid, decision by special 
D leave in this Court, and contended that Jankiraman eannot be read to hold, 
in a case like the present one where the disciplitlary proceedings have been 
initiated by framing the chargesheet and despatching the same that the 
chargesheet had not been issued and, therefore, the sealed cover proce-
dure could not be followed by the D.P.C. on 28.11.90. On behalf of the 
E respondent official it was urged that Jankiraman holds that withont effec· 
tive service of the chargesheet on the employee the disciplinary proceed· 
ings cannot be said to have been initiated, and reliance was also placed on 
the Office Memorandum dated 12.1.88 which required actual service and 
not mere issuance of the chargesheet for initiating the disciplinary 
F 
proceedings. 
Allowing the appeal, and setting aside the judgment of the High 
Court, this Court, 
HELD : 1. The 'sealed cover' procedure is applicable, in cases where 
G !he. 'disciplinary proceedings are. pending' in respect of the government 
servant; or 'a decision bas been taken to initiate disciplinary proceedings'. 
Thus, on a decision being taken to initiate disciplinary proceedings, the 
guidelines contained in OMs dated 14.9.92 and 12.1.88 attract the sealed 
cover procedure. [1040-D] 
oH 
.~ 2. The decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings cannot be sub· 
" • 
D.D.A .-. H.C. KHURANA 
1035 
sequent to the issuance of the chargesheet, since issue of the chargesheet A 
is a consequence of the decision to initiate disciplinary pr0ceedings.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.