UNION OF INDIA ETC. ETC. versus K.V. JANKIRAMAN ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1991] 3 S.C.R. 790 · Decided: 27-08-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
UNION OF INDIA ETC. ETC. 
v. 
K.V .. JANKIRAMAN ETC. ETC. 
AUGUST 27, 1991 
[RANGANATH MISRA, CJ M.H. KANIA AND 
P.B. SAWANT, JJ.) 
Civil Services: Government of India (Deptt. of Personnel and 
Training) Office Memorandum No. 
22011/ 1/79 Estt. (A) dated 
30.1.82-Promotion-Sealed cover procedure-When could be resor-
ted to--Exoneration from all charges-Notional promotion from the 
date the juniors were promoted-Arrears of salary from date of notional 
promotion-Grant of-Proceedings deliiyed because of the employee's 
acts or acquitted on benefit of doubt or owing to non-availability of 
evidence due to employee's acts-Entitlement to back wages-To be 
decided by the authority concerned-Employee visited with penalty in 
disciplinary proceedings or found guilty by court-Findings contained 
in sealed cover-not to be acted upon-Consideration for promotion-
Whether authority could take into account past record including penalty 
awarded earlier. 
Constitution of India, 1950:Article 20(2)-Non-promotion of 
e.mployee till the date on which he was held guilty-Whether amounts to 
double jeopardy. 
Fundamental Rules: Rule 17( 1)-No work no pay rule-Appli-
cability of-Where employee willing but not allowed to work. 
F 
When an employeedee ~due for promotion, ~crement etc. but disci-
. l_ 
plinary /criminal proc 
mgs are pending agamst him at the relevant 
time, the findings or his entitlement to such benefit are kept in a sealed 
cover to be opened after the proceedings in question are over. 
According to this procedure, while the findings are kept in the 
G 
sealed cover, the vacancy which might have gone to the officer con-
cerned is filled only on an officiating· basis. If on the conclusion of the 
departmental/court proceedings, the officer concerned is completely 
exonerated, and where he is under suspension it is also held that the 
suspension was wholly unjustified, the sealed cover is opened and the 
recommendations or the DPC are acted upon. If the officer could have 
H 
been promoted earlier, he is promoted to the post which is filled on an 
7CJO 
.. 
U.0.I. v. JANKIRAMAN 
791 
officiating basis, the officiating arrangement being terminated. On his 
promotion, the officer gets the benefit of seniority and fixation of pa) on 
a notional basis with reference to the date on which he would have been 
+ -
promoted in the normal course, but for the pending disciplinary /court 
proceedings. However, no arrears of salary are paid in respect of the 
period prior to the date of actual promotion. 
Sometimes the cases in the courts or the departmental ·proceed-
ings take nndnly long time to come to a conclusion and the officers 
undergo considerable hardship, even where it was not intended to 
deprive them of promotion for such a long time. The Government in 
consultation with the Union Public Service Commission examined hO\• 
the hardship caused to the Government servant in such circumstanc<' 
could be mitigated and laid down certain procedures by an Otlice 
:\lemorandum No. 22011/1/79-Estt. (A) dated January 30, 1982. 
In interpreting the Memorandum as to what is the date from 
which it can be said that disciplinary /criminai proceedings are pending 
against an employee; as to what would be the course to be adopted when 
the employee is held guilty in such proceedings if the guilt merit> 
punishment other than that of dismissal; and as to what benefits an 
employee who is completely or partially exonerated is entitled to and 
from which date, different Benches of the Central Administrative Tri· 
bunal recorded their findings and while doing so, the Full Bench of the 
Tribunal struck down two provisions of the said Memorandum dated 
January 30, 1982, which related to a prohibiton against acting upon the 
findings contained in the sealed cover in case the officer was imposed 
penalty ·as a result of disciplinary proceedings or found guilty in the 
L ourt proceedings against him and regarding arrears of pay for the 
period of notional promotion. 
Aggrieved by the decisions of the various Benches of the Tribnnal, 
the Union of India and other authorities preferred the present appeals 
and special leave petitions. 
Disposing of these matters, this Court, 
,. 
HELD: I. The sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only 
after the charge-memo/charge-sheet is issued. The pendency of prelimi-
nary investigation prior to that stage will not he sufficient to enable the 
authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure. The 

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