UNION OF INDIA AND ANR versus RS.SHARMA

Citation: [2000] 3 S.C.R. 151 · Decided: 18-04-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

+ 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
RS.SHARMA 
APRIL 18, 2000 
[K.T. THOMAS, D.P. MOHAPA1RAAND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law : 
Promotion: Sealed Cover Procedure-Applicability of-The procedure-
Employee-Investigation going on against him on serious allegations of finan-
cial misdemeanors-His case fell within the purview of para 2( iv) of the office 
memo-Sealed cover procedure adopted for promotion-Para 2(iv) was deleted 
but was clarified that cases covered under para 2( iv) would be opened-Before 
the case of the respondent could be opened and he could be promoted formal 
sanction was accorded to prosecute him by Central Bureau of lnvestigation-
Held, in view of para 7 sealed cover should not be opened till exoneration of 
charges-Government of India, Department of Per & Trag. O.M. No. 22011121 
86-Estt. (A) dated 12.1.1988, OM. No. 2201111191 Estt. (A) dated 31.7.1991. 
Respondent was a Divisional Engineer in the Telecom Department. 
His promotion was temporarily sealed due to the investigations going on 
against him on serious allegations of financial misdemeanors. The Central 
Bureau of Investigation completed the investigation and applied to the Gov-
ernment of India for sanction to prosecute the respondent. The Departmen-
tal Promotion Committee considered cases of other persons in the depart-
ment for promotion but deferred the case of the respondent. Pursuant to the 
order of the liibunal,DPC considered the case of the respondent. In accord-
ance with para 2(iv) which relates to government servants against whom 
investigation on allegations of corruption etc., are in progress, of Govern-
ment of India, Deptt. of Per. & Trag., Office Memo No. 2201112186-Estt. (A) 
dated 12.1.1988 sealed cover procedure was adoptedin respondents case. By 
Office Memo No. 22011/1191 Estt (A) dated31. 7.1.991para2(iv) was deleted 
but it was clarified that the cases contained in sealed cover in para 2(iv) 
would be opened while cases falling under other clauses of para 2 would 
continue to be in the sealed cover. Thereafter, before the respondentcould be 
promoted formal sanction was accorded to prosecute him. The Tribunal 
then directed the DPC to open the sealed cover and implement the recom-
mendations of DPC. Hence this appeal by Union of India. 
151 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
152 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
The appellants contended that the Minister concerned accorded 
"i-
approval for granting sanction to prosecute the respondent much before 
the deletion of para 2(iv), thus the recommendations of the DPC must 
remain under sealed cover by virtue of clause 2(iii) of the Sealed Cover 
Procedure which relates to government servants against whom formal 
B 
sanction is accorded to prosecute them. More so para 7 of the Sealed Cover 
Procedure applicable to officers coming under cloud before promotion, 
which states, that officers cannot be promoted until completely exonerated 
of the charges against them, would apply to the respondent. 
The respondent contended that the appellants had deliberately 
c 
denied promotion to the respondent immediately after the deletion of para 
2(iv) of the Sealed Cover Procedure, and therefore should not be allowed to 
invoke para 7 of the procedure. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
D 
HELD : 1.1. When formal sanction is accorded to prosecute an 
officer against whom charges of financial misdemeanors are levelled, the 
sealed cover under para 7 of the Sealed Cover Procedure for promotion of 
government servant should not be opened for promotion until charges 
levelled against the officer are completely exonerated.[157-B] 
E 
1.2. Paragraph 7 of the Sealed Cover Procedure states that it cannot 
apply to a government servant who is not actually promoted by that time. 
In the instant case the respondent was not actually promoted when the 
formal sanction had been accorded to prosecute him. Therefore, para 7 of 
F 
the sealed cover procedure would apply. [157-D; A] 
~ 
1.3. In spite of deletion of clause 2(iv) of the sealed cover procedure 
the recommendation of the DPC must remain in the sealed cover on 
account of clause 2(iii) of the procedure by virtue of the operation of para 7 
of the Sealed Cover Procedure. [157-FJ 
G 
Union eflndia v. K. V. Jankiraman, [1991] 4SCC109; Union of India v. 
Dr. Sudha S~lhan, [1998] 3 SCC and Bank of India v. De gala Suryanarayana, 
+ 
(1999] 5 sec 762, distinguished. 
Delhi Development Authority v. H.C. Khurana, JT (1993) 2 695 and 
H 
Union of India

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