DELHI JAL BOARD versus MAHINDER SINGH

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 69 · Decided: 01-09-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. JAGANNADHA RAO, RUMA PAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

DELHI JAL BOARD 
A 
v. 
MAHINDER SINGH 
SEPTEMBER 0 I, 2000 
[M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND RUMA PAL, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950 : Article 16 
Service Law-Promotion-Sealed cover procedure-Right to be 
considered for promotion is a fundamental right-Employee-Departmental C 
proceedings-Abeyance of promotion till finalisation of departmental 
enquiry-Sealed cover procedure-The findings of the Disciplinary Enquiry 
exonerating the officer have to be given effect to as they obviously relate 
back to the date on which the charges are framed-If the disciplinary inquiry 
ended in his favour, it is as if the officer had not been subjected to any D 
Disciplinary Enquiry-The mere fact that by the time the disciplinary 
proceedings in the first inquiry ended in his favour and by the time the sealed 
cover was opened to give effect to it, another departmental enquiry was 
started by the department, would not come in the way of giving him the 
benefit of the assessment by the first departmental Promotion Committee in 
his favour in the anterior selection. 
Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana, [1999) 5 SCC 762 and State 
of A.P. v. N. Radhakrishan, (1998) 4 SCC 155, referred to. 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTJON : Special Leave Petition (C) No. F 
11726of2000. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.3.2000 of the Delhi High Court 
in L.P. A. No. 129 of2000. 
K.N. Raval, Additional Solicitor General, Ms. Aparna Rohtagi, Mahesh G 
Kasana and K.B. Rohtagi for the Petitioner. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
This Special Leave petition is preferred against the order of the Division 
Bench of the Delhi High Court dated 27.3.2000 in LPA 129/2000 dismissing the H 
69 
70 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A LPA field by the Delhi Jal Board on the ground of delay and Advocate not 
being present. The respondent-writ petitioner contended before the learned 
Single Judge that the sealed cover prepared by the Departmental Promotion 
Committee should be opened and he be given the benefit of promotion as per 
the recommendation of the DPC notwithstanding the pendency of a latter 
B disciplinary case. 
The learned Single Judge of the High Court accepted the writ petitioner's 
contention following two judgments of this Court reported in [ 1999) 5 SCC 
762 Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana and in [1998) 4 SCC 155 State 
of A.P. v. N. Radhakrishan and allowed the writ petition. It was held that once 
C the first disciplinary inquiry resulted in favour of the writ petitioner, the 
benefit of the findings of DPC in the sealed cover should be given to the writ 
petitioner notwithstanding the pendency of a second inquiry. In the two 
judgments of this Court which were followed by the learned Single Judge, it 
was held that if a person's case had been considered for promotion by the 
Departmental Promotion Committee and because of pendency of certain 
D charges, the findings of DPC were kept in a sealed cover, he was entitled to 
t~e benefit of the findings of the Selection, if they were in his favour if the 
disciplinary inquiry ended in his favour, notwithstanding the fact that by that 
date, some other inquiry might have been pending against him. 
E 
F 
Learned Additional Solicitor General Sri K.N. Rawal has contended that 
the abovesaid two judgments of this Court require reconsideration. 
After hearing learned Additional Solicitor General at considerable length, 
we do not think that they require reconsideration. In fact, we are in entire 
agreement with that view. 
The right to be considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee 
is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of 
India, provided a person is eligible and is in the zone of consideration, The 
sealed cover procedure permits the question of his promotion to be kept in 
G abeyance till the result of any pending disciplinary inquiry. But the findings 
of the Disciplinary Enquiry exonerating the officer would have to be given 
effect to as they obviously relate back to the date on which the charges are 
framed. If the disciplinary inquiry ended in his favour, it is as if the officer 
had not been subjected to any Disciplinary Enquiry. The sealed cover 
procedure was envisaged under the rules to give benefit of any assessment 
H made by the Departmental Promotion Committee in favour of such an officer, 
. • 
DELHI JAL BOARD v. MAHINDER SINGH 
71 
if he had been found fit for promotion and if he was later exonerated in the A 
disc

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