STATE OF M.P. versus J.S. BANSAL AND ANR.

Citation: [1998] 1 S.C.R. 734 · Decided: 09-02-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF M.P. 
V. 
J.S. BANSAL AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY 9, 1998 
B 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Promotion-Sealed Cover Procedure-Opening of-Tribunal passed 
C interim order for opening of sealed cover and implementation of 
recommendations therein while departmental proceedings were pending 
against Government employee-Said Gov~rnment employee raised a plea 
that charge sheet was deliberately issued to him to prompt DPC of adopt 
"Sealed Cover Procedure" -Held : Such interim order to be granted only in 
exceptional cases-Interim order not jusified in the present case-Plea of 
D employee is a question of fact yet to be decided by the Tribunal-Sealed 
E 
I 
Cover Procedure valid-However, departmental proceedings directed to be 
completed within four months and promotional post be kept vacant till then. 
Promotion-Sealed Cover Procedure-Explained. 
The Respondent filed an application before the State Administrative 
Tribunal against a charge sheet issued to him challenging it on the ground 
that the charge sheet contained stale charges with mala fide intention. The 
Tribunal allowed the application. This Court declined to interfere with the 
order of the Tribunal. The respondent, thereafter, filed another application 
F before the Tribunal for a direction to the State Government to convene a 
meeting of the Departmental Promotion Comniittee (DPC) for considering 
the respondent's promotion and that no fresh departmental proceedings be 
started against him. The Tribunal directed holding of the DPC within six 
weeks but refused the relief regarding barring of fresh departmental 
G proceedings. 
The appellant-State sought extension of time from the Tribunal for 
convening the DPC. The Tribunal instead of granting time directed the 
appellant-State to produce the original records before it s<i that it could be 
found out as to why the DPC was being delayed. While the matter was 
H pending before the Tribunal, the appellant-State issued a fresh charge sheet 
734 
<-
.,... 
.,,, 
.J 
.... , 
·'!'· 
STATE v. J.S. BANSAL 
735 
to the respondent and subsequently in a meeting the recommendations of the A 
DPC were kept in a "Sealed Cover". Later the Tribunal restrained the 
appellant-State from promoting any person junior to the respondent and by 
another order status quo was passed. The respondent filed another application 
before the Tribunal seeking a direction that the "Sealed Cover" be opened. 
The Tribunal passed an interim order and directed the appellant-State to B 
open the "Sealed Cover" and to implement the recommendations contained 
therein. Consequently, the "Sealed Cover" was opened and the respondent 
was found fit for promotion. The appellant-State preferred the present appeal 
challenging the Tribunal's direction to open the "Sealed Cover". 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. In view of the Service Rule/Executive instruction relating 
to "Sealed Cover Procedure", Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), in 
such a situation, would be well within its right to place its recommendations 
c 
in the "Sealed Cover" so that the "Sealed Cover" may be opened on the 
conclusion of the Departmental Proceedings and recommendations contained D 
therein may be given effect to without delay. An interi_m order, therefore, that 
the "Sealed Cover" be opened and the recommendations of the DPC for the 
promotion of the delinquent officer may be given effect to even during the 
pendency of the departmental proceedings, subject to its final result, is not 
usually or always or as a matter of course, granted. This rule can be 
departed from only in exceptional cases depending upon the circumstances E 
of a particular case having regard to the fact that integrity, honesty and 
sincerity are the hall-marks of public services under the Union or the State 
and that efficiency of administration depend upon the effort made by persons 
holding public offices to serve the country and the Nation with devotion and 
an attitude of sacrifice without any iota or inkling of "self service" 
p 
[742-B-D) 
Union of India v. Tejinder Singh, [1991] 4 SCC i29 and Union of India 
v. K. v. Jankiraman, (1991) 4 sec 109, relied on. 
B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India AIR, (1996) SC 484 and State of 
Punjab v. Chaman/al Goyal, [1995) 2 sec 570, held inapplicable. 
G 
2. Whether the charge sheet was deliberately issued to prompt the 
DPC to take recourse to the "Sealed Cover Procedure" is a question of fact 
which has yet to be

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