Holding

The Tribunal was not justified in ordering the sealed‑cover to be opened; the sealed‑cover procedure should remain in force unless exceptional circumstances warrant deviation.

Summary

J.S. Bansal, a Superintending Engineer, challenged a charge‑sheet issued by the Madhya Pradesh Government, alleging it was stale and issued to block his promotion. The Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (MPAT) allowed his challenge, ordered a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meeting and later directed the State to open the sealed‑cover containing the DPC’s recommendations, despite pending departmental proceedings. The State appealed, arguing that the sealed‑cover procedure should not be disturbed except in exceptional cases and that the Tribunal’s interim order was unwarranted. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal was not justified in ordering the sealed cover to be opened while disciplinary proceedings were pending; the sealed‑cover procedure may be deviated from only in exceptional circumstances and the employee’s right is merely to be considered for promotion, not a guaranteed promotion. The Court directed that the departmental proceedings be completed within four months and the vacant post be kept unfilled during that period.

Issues considered

The Tribunal’s authority to grant interim relief directing the opening of a sealed‑cover and implementation of DPC recommendations while departmental proceedings are pending.
Whether the sealed‑cover procedure can be departed from in the present case.
Whether a charge‑sheet issued allegedly to forestall promotion is a question of fact unsuitable for interim relief.
The extent of an employee’s right to be considered for promotion during pending disciplinary proceedings.

Legislation cited

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

Subjects

Service lawPromotionSealed cover procedureDepartmental proceedingsInterim reliefRight to consideration for promotionArticles 14 and 16Administrative Tribunal

Judgment

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
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.

E 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
STATE v. J.S. BANSAL 735

to the respondent and subsequently in a meeting the recommendations of the A
.J 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
c
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
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 ofIndia v. Tejinder Singh, [1991] 4 SCC i29 and Union ofIndia
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 decided by the Tribunal on merits on the basis of the
evidence which might be led by the parties. That being so, it can hardly be
made a basis for interim relief. [7 43-B] H
736 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] 1 S.C.R.

A 3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the instant case,
it has to be held that the Tribunal was not justified in passing the impugned '\-
order that the "Sealed Cover" be opened and the recommendations of the - --
DPC be given effect to. The "Sealed Cover Procedure" was rightly adopted
by the DPC and there was no reason to interfere with that Procedure.
[744-E-Fl
B
4. An employee has a right of being considered for promotion but he
cannot claim promotion as of right. Right to be considered for promotion is
"'
obviously different and distinct from right of promotion. Even if disciplinary
proceedings are initiated against an employee and those proceedings are
pending on the date on which names of other employees are considered for
c promotion to the next higher post, the delinquent employee, if he is similarly
cicumstanced as other employees and is also eligible, has a right to be
considered for promotion to the next higher post along with other employees.
His name cannot be omitted from consideration merely because of the
pendency of the departmental proceedings. An employee cannot be denied
D this right at the interlocutory stage of the departmental proceedings as he
is still to be found guilty on the basis of the evidence which might be
..,.
produced against him during those proceedings. Till the charges are
established, his right to be considered cannot be defeated as he is not under
the cloud of having been found guilty but is only suspected to be quality. Mere
suspicion is not a substitute for proof. Consideration for promotion along
E with other eligible candidates is done so as to give effect to the Fundamental
Right available even to a delinquent employee under Articles 14 and 16 of t-
the Constitution. Oi\ce the name is considered for promotion, the
recommendations of the DPC are required to be kept in a "Sealed Cover"
obviously for the reason that if the employee is ultimately found to be not
F guilty and the charges set out against him are found as "not established",
he may be promoted immediately to the next higher post. [741-E-H; 742-AJ ~--

5. It is, however, directed that the disciplinary proceedings pending
against the respondent be completed within four months provided the
respondent co-operates. The promotional post, if not already filled up, would
G be kept vacant for four months. [714-C)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9134of1996. '(

'
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.4.96 of the Madhya Pradesh
Administrative Tribunal, Bhopal, in O.A. No.237 of 1996.
H Dr: A.M. Singhvi, Mrs. Madhur Dadlani and Satish K. Agnihotri for the
STA TE v. J.S. BANSAL [S. SAGHIRAHMAD, J.] 737

Appellant. A
-~

G.L. Sanghi, S.K. Gambhir and Vivek Gambhir, for the Respondent.

Sakesh Kumar and K.L.Hathi, for Mis. Hathi & Co., for the Respondent
No. 2
B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by :
""
S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J. Respondent No. I while working as
superintending Engineer (E&M) in the public Health Engineering Department
was issued a charge-sheet on 16.11.94 which was challenged by him in
0.A.No. 1219/94 in the Gwalior Bench of the Madhya Pradesh Administrative c
Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal') on the ground that besides containing
stale charges it was issued with the male fide intention to forestall the
consideration of his name for inclusion in the panel of candidates for promotion
to the post of chief Engineer (E&M). The claim petition was allowed by the
Tribunal by its order dated 17.5.95 and the S.L.P. filed by the state of Madhya
,.
,.._ Pradesh, in this Court, was dismissed on 16.10.95 with the following order:- D

"Delay condoned.

While we agree that some of the observations made by the Tribunal
are sweeping and not entirely correct in law, we are satisfied that the
conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is correct. We are not inclined E
to interfere in the matter, particularly in view of the fact that though
·the Lokayukta report was received in 1986, the charges were served
only in 1994, i.e. after about eight years. In the meantime, the respondent
had also been promoted in 1987. It is in view of these facts and
-\ circumstances that we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. The F
..,... special Leave Petition is dismissed."

2. Respondent No. l, thereafter, filed another case (0.A.No. 876/95)
before the Tn1mnal for the relief that the State Government may be directed
to convene the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee for
considering his name for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer and that the G
a. State Government may be restrained from starting any fresh departmental.
proceeding. This 0.A. was disposed of finally by the Tribunal by its order
dated 8.12.95 and the direction was issued to the appellant to hold the
meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee within six weeks. The
further relief that no fresh departmental proceedings be initiated against him H
738 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] l S.C.R.

A was refused by the Tribunal. On 3lst, of January, 1996 State Government filed
an application before the Tribunal for extension of time for convening the ··r;---
meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee but the Tribunal instead of
granting extension, directed, by its order dated 2.2. 96, to produce the original
records before it so that it may be found out as to why the convening of the
B Departmental Promotion committee was being delayed. While the matter was
pending before the Tribunal, a fresh charge-sheet was issued to respondent
No. 1 on 5th of February, 1996. When the meeting of the Departmental
Promotion Comittee was held on 12.2.96, its recommendations concerning
respondent No. 1and2 others were kept in the "Sealed Cover". This procedure
was adopted by the Departmental Promotion Committee because of the
C pendency of the departmental proceedings against Respondent No. I on the
basis of the charge-sheet issued to him on 5.2.96.

3. 111e Tribunal which already had before it the application of the
State Government for extension of the time (M.A.32/96), for convening the
meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee, passed an order on 14.2. 96
D restraining the State Government from promoting any person junior to
respondent No. I to the post of chief Engineer. A further order for status quo
was passed by the Tribunal on 27.2.96.

4. Respondent No.1 in the meantime, filed anther O.A. No. 237/96
E before the Tribunal on 11.3. 96 with the prayer that the State Government may
be directed to open the "Sealed Cover" containing the recommendations of
the Departmental Promotion committee. This 0.A..was clubbed with M.A. 32/
96. Tue orders ofthe Tribunal, passed on 14.2.96 and 27.2.96 were challenged
by the State Government in a Writ Petition No. 1420of1996 before the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh which by its order dated 15.4.96 stayed the operation
F of the afores:Ud order as also further proceedings in M.A.32/96. ,_
.,...
~5. O.A. No. 237/96 was taken up by the Tribunal and it disposed of the
application of Respondent No. I for interim relief by its order dater 21/4/96 and
directed the State Government to open the "Sealed Cover" and to implement
G the recommendations contained therein .

. 6. In the meantime, contempt proceedings were drawn up against the
officers of the State Government for not inlplementing the order of the Tribunal
that the "Sealed Cover" be opened and the recommendations of the
Departmental Promotion Committee, held on 12.2. 96, may be implemented.
H Consequen,tly, the "Sealed Cover" was opened which contained the
STATE v. J.S. BANSAL [S. SAGHIRAHMAD, J.] 739

·..,:.· recommendation of A
Promotion Committee as under:-

"Committee has found Shri J.S Bansal, superintending Engineer (E&M)
fit for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer (E&M) as he fulfills the
,+'. prescribed criterion. Promotion to be done only on being exonerated B
from Departmental Enquiry/Disciplinary Proceedings."

7. Before us, it is the Tribunal's order, dated 21.4.96 which is under
challenge. As pointed out earlier, the Tribunal, by its order, had directed that
the "Sealed Cover" be opened and the case of the respondent No. 1 for
promotion to the post of Chief Engineer may be further processed. c
8. In passing this order, the Tribunal has relied upon the decision of this
Court inB.C. Chaturvedi v. Union ofIndia, AIR (1996) SC 484 = (1995] 6 SCC
749, in which it has been, inter alia, observed as under :
,.
A
"8. It is true that pending disciplinary proceeding, the appellant D
was promoted as Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. Two courses
in this behalf are open to the competent authority, viz., sealed cover
procedure which is usually followed, or promotion, subject to the
result of pending disciplinary action. Obviously, the appropriate
authority adopted the latter course and gave the benefit of promotion E
to the appellant. Such an ·action would not stand as an impediment
to take pending disciplinary action to its logical conclusion. The
advantage of promotion gained by the delinquent officer would be no
impediment to take appropriate decision and to pass an order consistent
with the finding of proved misconduct."
-\
-+,-
F
. 9. It may be pointed out at the outset that the Tribunal was not justified
'
in placing reliance upon this decision for passing the impugned order of
interim relief as the delinquent officer (B.C. Chaturvedi), against whom a C.B.I.
enquiry was .held on the allegation that he was in possession of assets
disproportionate to his known income, was not prosecuted under Prevention
of Corruption Act as the C.B.I. was of the opinion that it was not in possession
G
)l-.
of strong proof which would ultimately result in his conviction and, therefore,
recommended that Mr. B.C. Chaturvedi may be departmentally tried. A charge-
sheet was, thereafter, issued to Mr. B. C. Chaturvedi and regular departmental
enquiry was held in which misconduct on his part was found proved and he
was dismissed from service. The Tribunal, before whom the order of dismissal H
740 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] l S.C.R.

A was challenged, reappreciated the evidence and upheld the findings recorded
in the departmental proceedings but converted the order of dismissal into one
of compulsory retirement. During the pendency of the departmental
proceedings, Mr. Chaturvedi was promoted as Assistant Commissioner of
Income Tax. Thus, in that case, it was not the mere question of granting
interim relief of "promotion subject to the result of the departmental
B proceedings" but the order of dismissal and its subsequent conversion into
the order of compulsory retirement which was under the consideration of the
Court. The grant of interim relief, during the pendency of the departmental
enquiry, was not directly in issue in that case and the observations were in
the nature of mere obiter dicta.
c 10. The question whether recourse to "Sealed Cover" procedure can be
adopted in a case where departmental proceedings are pending on the date
on which the delinquent officer is considered for promotion and whether the
Tribunal could pass an interim order that the employee may be considered
and promoted .to the next higher post irrespective of the departmental
-
D proceedings, contemplated or pending, was considered by this court in Union
of India v. Tejinder Singh, [1991] 4 SCC 129, in which it was observed as
under:- "

"4: The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order
passed by the central Administrtive Tribunal directing the Union of
E India, Ministry of Finance to consider the respondent for promotion
to the post of Commissioner of Income tax, Level II, is set aside. While
setting aside the impugned order of the Tribunal we would like to
record that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction whatever while dealing
with a petition to quash the contemplated departmental enquiry against
F the respondent, to make an interim order of this nature. We are also
not satisfied as to the correctness of the view expressed by the ·-
,_
Tribunal that a contemplated departmental inquiry or pendency of a
departmental proceeding cannot be a ground for withholding
consideration for promotion or the promotion itself. We are not aware
of any rule or principle to warrant such a view. As at present advised,
G
we do.not subscribe to the view expressed by the Tribunal."
II

11. After this decision, tl1e office Memorandum No.2201111/79 Estt. (A)
dated January 30, 1982 issued by the Government of India (Department of
Personnel and Training) was reconsidered and in its place office Memorandum
H No.2201112/86 Estt.(A) dated January 12, 1988 was issued.
STATE v. J.S. BANSAL [S. SAGIDRAHMAD, J.] 741

12. Both these memoranda were considered by this Court in Union of A
India & Ors. v. K. V. Jankiraman & Ors., [1991] 4 SCC 109 in which it was
laid down that consideration of an employee for promotion, selection grade,
crossing of efficiency bar or higher scale of pay cannot be withheld merely
on the ground of pendency of any preliminary enquiry or criminal investigation
but the "Sealed Cover Procedure" can be resorted to if a charge-sheet has
been issued or the departmental proceedings are pending or the employee has B
been placed under suspension. It was also laid down that if on a consideration
of the name of the delinquent employee, the recommendations of the
Departmental Promotion Committee were kept in a "Sealed Cover" on account
...... of the pendency of departmental proceedings, the "Sealed Cover" could be
opened only.in the case of complete exoneration of the employee from all C
charges and notional promotion could be given to him from the date on which
his juniors were promoted. But if any penalty is imposed on the employee in
disciplinary proceedings, the "Sealed Cover" is not required to be acted upon
and his case for promotion is to be considered in the usual manner by the
next Departmental Promotion Committee.
.., . D
13. Undoubtedly, an employee has a right of being considered for
promotion but he cannot claim promotion as of right. Right to be considered
for promotion is obviously different and distinct from right of promotion.
Even if disciplinary proceedings are initiated against an employee and those
proceedings are pending on the date on which names of other employees are E
considered for promotion to the next higher post, the delinquent employee,
if he is similarly ci_rcumstanced as other employees and is also eligible, has
a right to be considered for promotion to the next higher post along with other
employees. His name cannot be omitted from consideration merely because
of the pendency of the departmental proceedings. An employee cannot be F
denied this right at the interlocutory stage of the departmental proceedings
lJS he is still to be found guilty on the basis of the evidence which might be
produced against him during those proceedings. Till the charges are
established, his right to be considered cannot be defeated as he is not under
the cloud of having been found guilty but is only suspected to be guilty.
Mere suspicion is not a substitute for proof. Consideration for promotion G
along with other eligible candidates is done so as to give effect to the
Fundamental Right available even to a delinquent employee under Article 14
and 16 of the constitution. Once the name is considered for promotion, the
recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee are required to be
kept in a "Sealed Cover" obviously for the reason that if the employee is H
742 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] I S.C.R.

A ultimately found to be not guilty and the charges set out against him are
found as "not established", he may be promoted immediately to the next
higher post.

14. In view of the law laid down by this Court in Tejinder Singh 's case

B
and Jankiraman 's case (supra) and in view of the seivice Rule/Executive
instruction relating to "Sealed Cover Procedure", Departmental Promotion
Committee, in such a situation, would be well within its right to place its
(
recommendations in the "Sealed Cover" so that the "Sealed Cover" may be
opened on 'the conclusion of the Departmental proceedings and
recommendations contained therein may be given effect to without delay. An
C interim order, therefore, that the "Sealed Cover" be opened and the
recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee 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 of a particular case
D having regard to the fact that integrity, honesty and sincerity are the hall-mark
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 seivice".

E 15. Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that when the
charge-sheet was first issued to the respondent, it was quashed by the
Tribunal on the ground of delay in initiating the departmental proceedings for
charges which were very old and stale. The decision of the Tribunal was
upheld by this Court as the S.L.P filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh was
F dismissed. The second charge-sheet on the basis of which the present
departmental proceedings have been initiated also contains stale charges and,
therefore, the said charge-sheet would also be ultimately quashed by the
Tribunal particularly when the departmental proceedings have been initiated
with the mala fide intention of forestalling the promotion of the respondent
to the post of Chief Engineer. It is contended that the charge-sheet was
G issued just one day before the meeting of the Departmental Promotion
Committee which makes it obvious that it was deliberately issued so that at
the time of the consideration of respondent's name for promotion, the
recommendations may be placed in the "Sealed Cover" and his juniors may
be promoted.
H 16. It is true that the charge-sheet was issued on 5.2.96, i.e., a day before
/
STATE v. J.S. BANSAL [S. SAGHIRAHMAD, J.) 743
the Departmental Promotion Committee was to meet. The Departmental A
-·..:: Promotion committee met on 6.2.96 but actually considered the name of the
respondent in its meeting held on 12.2.96. Whether the charge-sheet was
deliberately issued to prompt the Departmental Promotion Committee to take
recourse to the "~ealed Cover Procedure" is a question of fact which has yet
to be decided by the Tribunal on merits on the basis of the evidence which
might be led by the parties. That being so. it can hardly be made a basis for B
·-i:· interim relief.

17. As to the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that
the charges in the present charge-sheet are also stale and this charge-sheet
is also likely to be ultimately quashed by the Tribunal, it would suffice to C
point out that the Tribunal itself has, in its order, indicated that out of 10
charges, the first 8 charges, relate to the period 1979 to 1987 but charges No.
10 and 11 relate to 1991 and 1992. These charges, namely, charge No. 10 and
11 which relate to the year 1991 and 1992 cannot be said to be stale.

18. Learned counsel, then, placed reliance upon the decision of this D
r·
~. Court in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Chamanlal Goyal, [1995] 2 SCC 570 and
contended that in view of the fact that the "Sealed Cover" has already been
opened and it has been found that the respondent has been recommended
to be promoted to the post of Chief Engineer, an interim order can be
legitimately passed that he shall be promoted to the post of Chief Engineer,
subject to the result of enquiry proceedings pending against him. This decision E
does not notice the Three judge decision in Jankiraman's case. Moreover, it
·was held that the order of the High Court by which the charge-sheet as also
the order appointing an Enquiry Officer were quashed, was not warranted by
the circumstances of the case and that it was in the interest of justice as also
in the interest of administration that the departmental enquiry, which had F
-) already proceeded to a large extent, be allowed to be completed. This court
also directed that the delinquent employee may be considered forthwith for
promotion without reference to and without taking into consideration the
charges or the pendency of the said enquiry and if he was found fit for
promotion, he should be promoted immediately. The Court hastened to add:-
G
'I• "This direction is made in the particular facts and circumstances of
the case though we are aware that the rules and practice normally
followed in such cases may be different."

. 19. This order was passed on the conscious consideration of the fact H
744 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998] l S.C.R.

A that the charge-sheet and departmental proceedings had been quashed by the
High Court and, therefore, the Court merely balanced the equities by directing
that the petitioner, in that case, may be considered and promoted, if found
fit

20. It was further observed that the promotion so made during the
B pendency of the enquiry shall be, subject to review after the conclusion of
the enquiry in the light of the fmdings recorded in the departmental
proceedings. This decision, tlierefore, cannot be pressed in aid in this case.

21. Dr. AM. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
State of Madhya Pradesh has contended that in view of the law laid down
C by this Court in Jankiraman 's case, the judgment passed by Tribunal cannot
be sustained particularly as the charges against the respondent relate to
financial irregularities, two of which are recent in time and cannot be said to
be stale. It is also contended that the allegation of malice made against the
State Government is still at the initial stage of mere assertion which is
D unsubstantiated and cannot be treated even as laying down a foundation for
any interim relief. Dr. Singhvi also contended that part of the evidence on
behalf of the State has already been recorded by the enquiry officer and the
enquiry proceedings would be completed within the time frame fixed by this
Court provided the respondent cooperates in those proceedings.

E 22. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the instant case,
we are firmly of the view that the Tribunal was not justified in passing the
impugned order that the. "Sea)ed Cover" be opened ard the recommendations
of the Departmental Promotion committee be given effect to. The "Sealed
Cover Procedure" was rightly adopted by the Departmental Promotion
F Committee and there was no reason to interfere with that procedure.
,..
\-
23. It is pointed out that the post of Chief Engineer (E&M) has already
been filled up and respondent No. 2 has already been promoted. It is, however,
stated on behalf of respondent No. , I that a post of chief Engineer(E&M), on
which Mr. K.K. Murab was promoted, has fallen vacant as Mr. Murab has
G retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation in November, 1997
and this post is still lying vacant. It is contended that on this vacant post,
.respondent No. I can be promoted subject to the result of the departmental
enquiry.

24. Having given our anxious consideration to the respective
H contentions, we think that the interest of justice would be best served by
STATE v. J.S. BANSAL [S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J.] 745
directing that if the post of Chief Engineer (E&M), held by Mr. K.K. Murab A
has since fallen vacant as pointed out by the counsel for the respondent and
if the said post is still lying vacant and no promotion has so far been made
on that post, it shall not be filled up by the State Government and shall be
kept vacant so that if and when respondent No. I is ultimately found to be
not guilty in departmental proceedings, he may be promoted on that post B
without delay particularly as he has already been found by the Departmental
Promotion Committee to be fit for promotion. We also direct that the
departmental proceedings, pending against respondent No I, shall be
completed, provided respondent No, I cooperates. within a period of four
months. The post of chief Engineer, referred to above which has fallen vacant
. on the retirement of Mr. K.K.Murab, shall not be filled up for four months, C
if the same has not already been filled up in the meantime.

25. The appeal is disposed of in the manner indicated above without
any order as to costs.

V.S.S. Appeal disposed of. D

,
'