LexUNION OF INDIA versus KEWAL KUMAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-
UNION OF INDIA
v.
KEWAL KUMAR
APRIL 12. 1993
[,J.S. VERMA AND S.C. AGRA WAL, JJ.]
Ciri! Service: Promotion-Sealed corer procedure by D.P.C-
Legality of.
A
B
The D.P.C. met on 23.1L1989 fur considering the respondent c
and some others for promotion to the Senior Administratil·e Grade.
In l'iew of the fact that the decision to initiate disciplinarj·
proceedings against the respondent for imposition of major penalty
was taken b_\' the competent authorit)· on 20.11. 1989, the D.P. C
D
followed the sealed co\·er procedure. On the basis of a F.l.R. registered
b)· the C.B.I. on 30.9.1988, the decision to initiate disciplinar_\' pro-
ceeding was taken b_\' the compdent authorit_\· on 20.11.1989 though
the F.I.R. was receiwd b_\' it on 31.5.1989. The charge sheet was issued
to the respondent on l.8.1990.
The respondent challenged before the Central Administrati\'e
Tribunal. the-action of the D.P.C. to follow the sealed co\'er procedure
in his case.
E
The Trihunal allowed respondent's application holding that the F
sealed co,·er procedure could not be followed in \'iew of the decision
in U11fo11 of India and Others v. K. V. Ja11kirama11 and Others. [l 99IJ
4 sec 109.
In this appeal hy special lea\'e the Union of India <JUestioned the
decision of the Tribunal ..
Allowing the appeal, this Court,
HELD: 1.1. The- sealed co\'er procedure is attracted eYen when
<_;
a. 'decision has heen taken to initiate disciplinar_\' proceedings', or H
45
Sl1PRB1E COL'RT REPORTS
[199313 S.C.R.
A 'decision to accord sanction for prosecution is taken' or 'criminal
prosecution is launched or .........• decision to accord sanction for pros-
ecution is taken'. (48-G)
u
t.2. When the competent authorit)· takes the decision to initiate
a disciplinarJ proceeding or steps are taken for launching a criminal
prosecution against the go\'ernment sen·ant, he cannot be gh·en the
promotion, unless exonerated, ~,·en if the government sen·ant is
recommended for promotion h)· the D.P.C., being found suitable
otherwise. (48-H, 49-A)
C
1.3. In a case like the present. where the First Information Report
was registered hJ the Central Bureau of ln\'estigation, an.d on that
hasis the decision had been taken h)' the competent authorit)· to
initiate disciplinarJ proceedings for imposition of major penalt)' on
the respondent prior to the meeting of the D.P.C., the applicahilit)· of
D the sealed co\·er procedure cannot he doubted. (49-B)
E
J.4 The formulation of the charges required for implementing
the decision of the competent authorit)· to initiate the disciplimtr)'
proceedings, is satisfied in SU('h a case h)' the recording of the First
Information Report h)' the Central Bureau of Investigation which
records the allegations against the respondent, and provides the basis
fordisciplinar)' proc~edings. The requisite formulation of the charges,
in such a case. is no longer nebulous, being c·rystalised in the F.l.R.
itself and, therefore, e\·en if the chargesheet was issued b)' its despatch
to the respondent suhsequent to the meeting of the D.P.C. this fact
F
alone cannot benefit the respondent: ( 49-C-D)
G
1.5. The question to examine in each case, is: whether, th~
decision to initiate the discipl,inary proceedings had been taken or
steps for criminal prosecution initiated before the date on which the
D.P.C. made the selection? The decision would depend on the. facts of
the case. keeping in \'iew the object sought to he achie\'ed by adopting
the sealed co\'er procedure. (49-E)
1.6. It would he incongruous to hold that, in a case like the
present, where the C.B.I. had recorded the F.I.R.; sent the same to the
H superior authorities of the respondent for taking necessary action;
'
i
-
...
UNIO:-< OF INDIA"· KEWAL KUMAR [VERMA. J .. )
47
and the competent authority had taken the decision, on the basis of the A
F.l.R., to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the respondent for
imposition of major penalty, there can be any doubt that the sealed
cover procedure is attracted to avoid promoting the respondent,
unless exonerated of those charges. (49-F)
B
Union of India and Other v. K. V. Jankiraman and Ors .. [1991] 4
SCC I 09; Del lzi Development Authority v. H. C Khurana. C.A. No. 1240
of 1993-D/-7.4.1993, referred to. (5.1-B)
l·.7. Clause (iv) of the office Memorandum No.22011/2/.86-ESst
(A) dated 12.1.1988 relates to 'Government servants against whom an C
investigation on serious allegExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.