Holding

The DPC’s recommendation for promotion must be honoured because, on the relevant date, the respondent was not under suspension, nor had a charge‑sheet been served, nor any criminal prosecution pending, rendering the sealed‑cover procedure inapplicable.

Summary

The respondent, a senior accounts officer in the North‑East Frontier Railway, was placed on the extended select panel for promotion to Group A (Junior Scale) by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) in February 2002. When his batch‑mates were promoted on 21‑April‑2003, he was not promoted. He claimed that the DPC’s recommendation should be honoured because, on that date, he was neither under suspension, nor had a charge‑sheet been served, nor was any criminal prosecution pending. The Union argued that charge‑sheets had been issued in August‑September‑2003 and that, under paragraph 7 of the 1992 Office Memorandum, the sealed‑cover procedure should apply. The Supreme Court held that disciplinary proceedings commence only upon issuance of a charge‑sheet; since none existed on the promotion date, the sealed‑cover process was inapplicable and the DPC’s recommendation must be implemented. Consequently, the appeal by the Union was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the sealed‑cover procedure under Office Memorandum No. 22011/4/91‑Estt(A) applies when a charge‑sheet is issued after the promotion date.
When do disciplinary or criminal proceedings deemed pending for promotion purposes commence.
Whether paragraph 7 of the memorandum overrides paragraph 2 in the present facts.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120, s. 142
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988s. 13(1)(d), s. 13(2)

Subjects

promotionsealed cover proceduredepartmental promotion committeedisciplinary proceedingscharge sheetservice lawrailwayOffice Memorandum 1992

Judgment

[2013) 2 S.C.R. 396

A UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
v.
ANIL KUMAR SARKAR
(Civil Appeal No. 2537 of 2013)
MARCH 15, 2013
B
[P. SATHASIVAM AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.]

SERVICE LAW·

c Promotion - Sealed cover procedure - Recommendation
of DPC for promotion of respondent not given effect to on the
ground that subsequently memorandum of charges were
issued to him - Held: When respondent's batch mates were
promoted, admittedly, on that date he was not under
suspension, no charge sheet was served upon him nor was
0
he facing any criminal prosecution - In such circumstances,
in terms of paragraph 2 of O.M. dt. 24.09.1992,
recommendation of DPC has to be honored and there is no
question of applying 'sealed cover process' - Government of
E India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions,
Department of Personnel and Training O.M. No. 22011141911
Estt.(A) dated 24.9.1992.

Disciplinary proceedings - Commencement of - Held:
Disciplinary proceedings commence only when a charge
F sheet is issued.

The respondent, while working as Senior AFA/T-1 in
North-east Frontier Railway, was considered by the
Departmental Promotion Committee convened on
G 26.2.2002 for promotion of Group 'B' Officers of Accounts
Department to Group A (Jr. Scale) of Indian Railways
Accounts Service and his name was placed in the
extended select panel. By office order dated 21.4.2003,
the batch-mates of the respondent were promoted but he
H 396
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. ANIL KUMAR SARKAR 397

was not promoted. He, therefore, filed representations, A
which were rejected. He then filed an 0.A. before the
Central Administrative Tribunal. It was the case of the
department that during the year 1994-95, the respondent
committed gross misconduct in the matter of checking
and passing of bills of various firms, for which four B
memorandum of charges were issued to him on
13.8.2003, 1.9.2003 and 5.11.2003. Further, on similar
charges an FIR was lodged by CBI, and 3 special cases
were registered against him in the year 2004. The Tribunal
dismissed the O.A. But the High Court allowed the writ c
petition of the respondent.

Dismissing the appeal filed by the department, the
Court

HELD: 1.1 There is no dispute as to the fact that the D
, Office Memorandum No. 22011 /4/91-Estt(A), Government
of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and
Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training, New Delhi
dated 14.09.1992 is applicable to the case on hand. As per
paragraph 2 of the memorandum, at the time of E
consideration of the Government servants for promotion,
the following details of Government servants In the
consideration zone for promotion falling in the categories
mentioned should be specifically brought to the notice of
the DPC, viz., (I) Government servant is under suspension; F
(ii) Government servant has been served with a charge
sheet and the disciplinary proceedings are pending; and
(Ill) Government servant Is facing prosecution for a
criminal charge and the said proceedings are pending.
As rightly observed by the High Court, If the above G
conditions are available, even one of them, then the DPC
has to apply the 'sealed cover process'. In the case on
hand, It Is not In dispute that the relevant date Is 21.04.2003,
when the respondent's batch-mates were promoted,
admittedly, on that date the respondent was not under H
suspension, nor any charge sheet was served upon him
398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 2 S.C.R.

A nor was he facing any criminal prosecution. In such
circumstances, in terms of paragraph 2, the
recommendation of the DPC has to be honored and there
is no question of applying 'sealed cover process'. [para
8 and 11] [402-D-E, 405-E-H; 406-A]
B
1.2 Paragraph 7 of the memorandum makes it clear
that a government servant, who is recommended for
promotion by the DPC, if any of the circumstances
mentioned in para 2 of the said memorandum arises after
the recommendations of the DPC are received, but before
C he is actually promoted, will be considered as if his case
has been placed in a sealed cover by the DPC. On the
relevant date, namely, 21.04.2003, when batch mates of
the respondent were promoted, none of the conditions
was in existence. Admittedly, the respondent was not
D placed under suspension, charge sheet was issued only
on 13.08.2003 i.e. nearly after 4 months, no disciplinary
proceedings were initiated or pending as on 21.04.2003.
Disciplinary proceedings commence only when a charge
sheet is issued. In such circumstances, the High Court
E is fully justified in issuing direction based on para 2 of
the memorandum. [para 12 and 15] [406-C-D, E-F; 409-F]

Union of India and Others vs. K. V. Jankiraman and
Others, 1991 (3) SCR 790 = (1991) 4 sec 109 - relied on.
F Coal India Limited & Ors. vs. Saroj Kumar Mishra 2007
(5) SCR 233 =AIR 2007 SC 1706; Chairman-cum-Managing
Director, Coal India Limited and Others vs. Ananta Saha and
Others, 2011 (5) SCR 44 = (2011) 5 SCC 142· referred to.

G Union of India and Another vs. R.S. Sharma 2000 (3)
SCR 151 = (2000) 4 SCC 394 - held inapplicable.
Case Law Reference:
1991 (3) SCR 790 relied on para 12
H
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. ANIL KUMAR SARKAR 399

2007 (5) SCR 233 referred to para 14 A
2011 (5) SCR 44 referred to para 15
2000 (3) SCR 151 held inapplicable para 16
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
B
2537 of 2013.

From the Judgment and Order dated 27.04.2010 of the
High Court of Guwahati, Assam in Writ Petition No. 744 of
2010.
c
Mohan Jain, ASG, D.K. Thakur, Sadhana Sandhu, Rashmi
Malhotra, Manmeet Kaur, S.N. Terdal and Arvind Kumar
Sharma for the Appellants.

Rakesh Kumar Singh and Prem Prakash for the D
Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted. E

3. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order
dated 27 .04.2010 passed by the Gauhati High Court at Gauhati
in Writ Petition (C) No. 744 of 2010 whereby the Division Bench
of the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the F
respondent herein and set aside the order dated 21.08.2009
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Gauhati Bench,
Gauhati in O.A. No. 251 of 2007.

4. Brief facts
G
a) Anil Kumar Sarkar, the respondent herein, joined the
Northern Railways as a Junior Clerk on 04.11.1977. He was
promoted to various posts and while he was working as senior
AFA/T-1 in the office of the Financial Adviser and Chief
H
400 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 2 S.C.R.

A Accounts Officer of Northeast Frontier (N.F.) Railway at
Maligaon, a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was
convened by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) on
26.02.2002 and 27.02.2002 to consider eligible Group 'B'
officers of the Accounts Department for their substantive
B promotion to Group 'A' (Jr. Scale) of Indian Railways Accounts
Service (IRAS) against the vacancies for various Zonal
RailwayslProduction Units. In the said DPC, the respondent's
name was also considered against the vacancies in N.F.
Railway for the year 2001-2002 and accordingly, his name was
C placed in the extended select panel.
b) It was alleged by the appellants herein that during the
year 1994-95, while the respondent was working as Assistant
Accounts Officer in the Central Stores Accounts (Bills) in the
office of the Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer (Open
D Line), N.F. Railway, Maligaon, he committed gross misconduct
in the matter of checking and passing the bills of various firms
involved in manufacturing and supplying of cast iron sleeper
plates to N.F. Railways. For the said acts, four memorandum
of charges were issued to the respondent, out of which two
E were issued on 13.08.2003 and others on 01.09.2003 and
05.11.2003. On the basis of the said memorandums, four
departmental proceedings were initiated against the
respondent at three different places, i.e., Delhi, Kolkata and
Gauhati, enquiries were completed and show cause notices
F were served.
c) Based on the similar charges, in the year 2004, the CBI
lodged 11 FIRs against the respondent herein on different
dates under Section 12001420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
and Section 13(1 )(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention
G of Corruption Act, 1988 and accordingly, cases were registered
against him. Subsequently, 11 cases were amalgamated into
3 cases being numbered as Special Case Nos. 59104, 60104
and 62104. According to the appellants, on the basis of these
charges, the respondent was not promoted to Group 'A' (Jr.
H Scale).
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. ANIL KUMAR SARKAR 401
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

d) By office order dated 21.04.2003, the batch mates of A
the respondent were promoted. Being aggrieved, the
respondent herein filed several representations to the
Department for consideration of his case for promotion which
were duly rejected. Challenging the non-consideration of his
case for promotion, the respondent filed O.A. No. 251 of 2007 B
before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Gauhati Bench for
a direction to the appellants herein to promote him to Group
'A' (Jr. Scale) of IRAS w.e.f. 05.03.2002 in terms of the
recommendations of the DPC held on 26.02.2002 and
27.02.2002 wherein·his name was figured in the extended C
panel list. Vide order dated 21.08.2009, the Tribunal dismissed
his application.
e) Challenging the order of the Tribunal, the respondent
herein filed a petition being W.P.(C) No. 744 of 2010 before 0
the Gauhati High Court. The High Court, by impugned order
dated 27.04.2010, allowed the petition and set aside the order
passed by the Tribunal and directed the appellants herein to
· issue appropriate order in favour of the respondent herein for
promotion with all consequential benefits. E
f) Challenging the said order, the Union of India has filed
this appeal by way of special leave.
5. Heard Mr. Mohan Jain, learned Additional Solicitor
General for the Union of India and Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, F
learned counsel for the respondent.
Contentions:
6. Mr. Mohan Jain, learned ASG, after taking us through
the Office Memorandum dated 14.09.1992 issued by the G
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions,
Departnient of Personnel and Training, submitted that
paragraph 2 of the said memorandum has to be considered
along with paragraph 7 of the same. According to him, the High
Court is not justified in considering paragraph 2 of the H
402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 2 S.C.R.

A memorandum alone. He further submitted that at the relevant
time, 4 charge sheets were issued to the respondent and
enquiries were completed and notices to show cause had
already been served upon the respondent. On the other hand,
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent
B submitted that as on the date i.e. 21.04.2003, when his juniors
were promoted, neither the respondent was under suspension
nor any charge sheet was served upon him and he was not
facing any criminal prosecution, hence, there was no
impediment in promoting him.
c 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and
all the relevant materials including the decision of the Tribunal
and the impugned order of the High Court.

Discussion:
D
8. There is no dispute as to the fact that the Office
Memorandum No. 22011 /4/91-Estt(A), Government of India,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions,
Department of Personnel & Training, New Delhi dated
E 14.09.1992 is applicable to the case on hand. In fact, learned
ASG appearing for the appellants and learned counsel for the
respondent heavily relied on the said memorandum. The
relevant paragraphs for our present purpose are 2 and 7 which
are reproduced hereunder:
F "No. 22011/4/91-Estt(A)
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
Department of Personnel & Training
G North Block, New Delhi-110001
Dated: 14.09.1992
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject : Promotion of Government servants against whom
H disciplinary/court proceedings are pending or whose
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. ANIL KUMAR SARKAR 403
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
conduct is under investigation. Procedure and guidelines A
to be allowed.

Board's L/No. E(D&A) In supersession of all
88RG6-21 dt. 21.9.88 & instructions contained in Bd's
2.7.90 letters referred to in the B
margin on the above subject,
the procedure and guidelines
laid down below shall be
followed in the matter of
promotion from Group 'B' to
Group 'A' and within Group 'A' C
of Railway Officers against
whom disciplinary/Court
proceedings are pending.
Cases of Govt. to whom 2. At the time of consideration o
sealed cover procedure of the cases of Govt. servants
will be applicable. for empanelment details of
Govt. servants in the
consideration zone for
promotion falling under the E
following categories should
be specifically brought to the
notice of the Departmental
Promotion Committee:-
(i) Government Servants under F
suspension;
(ii) Government servants in
respect of whom a charge
sheet has been issued and
the disciplinary proceedings G
are pending;
(iii) Government servants in
respect of whom prosecution
for a criminal charge is
pending. H
404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013) 2 S.C.R.

A ···-···································

B Sealed cover procedure 7. A Govt. servant, who is
applicable to officers recommended for promotion
coming under cloud- by the Departmental
holding of DPC but before Promotion Committee but in
promotion. whose case any of the
c circumstances mentioned iii
para 2 above arise after the
recommendations of the
DPC are received but before
he is actually promoted, will
D be considered as if his case
had been placed in a Sealed
Cover by the DPC. He shall
not be promoted until the
conclusion of disciplinary
case/criminal proceedings
E
and the provisions contained
in this letter will be applicable
in his case also."
9. It is not in dispute that the respondent had joined the
F Northern Railways as a Junior Clerk on 04.11.1977, and got
promoted time and again. While he was working as a Group
'B' Officer, his case was taken up for promotion to Group 'A'
(Junior Scale) of the Indian Railways Accounts Service (IRAS).
It is also not in dispute that in the meetings of the DPC
G conducted on 26.02.2002 and 27.02.2002, the respondent's
name was considered and he was placed in the extended
select panel. It is further seen that up to 21.04.2003, the date
on which the respondent's batch mates were promoted to
IRAS, neither any criminal proceedings was initiated against
H him nor any departmental enquiry was initiated, nor any charge
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. ANIL KUMAR SARKAR 405
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
sheet was served upon him and nor he was placed under A
suspension. Aggrieved by the non-consideration of his
representations for promotion, the respondent filed O.A. before
the Central Administrative Tribunal. Learned counsel for the
Railways, by placing reliance on the Office Memorandum dated
14.09.1992, contended before the Tribunal that a Government B
servant who is recommended for promotion by the DPC and
in whose case the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 2 are
in existence, he shall not be promoted. Accepting the above
stand of the Railways, the Tribunal rejected the petition filed by
the respondent herein. c
10. Aggrieved by the said decision of the Tribunal, the
respondent herein filed a petition before the High Court,
wherein, the said memorandum, particularly paragraph 2, was
pressed into service. The High Court, taking note of the
conditions prescribed in paragraph 2 and in the absence of any D
such condition as on the relevant date, i.e., 21.04.2003, set
aside the order of the Tribunal and directed the Railways to
consider the case of the respondent for promotion.
11. As per paragraph 2 of the said memorandum, at the E
time of consideration of the Government servants for promotion,
the following details of Government servants in the
consideration zone for promotion falling in the categories
mentioned should be specifically brought to the notice of the
DPC, viz., (i) Government servant is under suspension; (ii) F
Government servant has been served with a charge sheet and
the disciplinary proceedings are pending; and (iii) Government
servant is facing prosecution for a criminal charge and the said
proceedings are pending. As rightly observed by the High
Court, if the above conditions are available, even one of them, G
then the DPC has to apply the 'sealed cover process'. In the
case on hand, it is not in dispute that the relevant date is
21.04.2003, when the respondent's batch mates were
promoted, admittedly on that date the respondent was not under
suspension, no charge sheet was served upon him nor he was H
406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 2 S.C.R.

A facing any criminal prosecution. In such circumstances, in terms
of paragraph 2 referred to above, the recommendation of the
DPC has to be honored and there is no question of applying
'sealed cover process'.

12. Mr. Mohan Jain, learned ASG submitted that
8
paragraph 2 has to be read along with paragraph 7 of the office
memorandum dated 14.09.1992. We have already extracted
paragraph 7 of the memorandum which makes it clear that a
government servant, who is recommended for promotion by the
DPC if any of the circumstances mentioned in para 2 of the
C said memorandum arises after the recommendations of the
DPC are received, but before he is actually promoted will be
considered as if his case has been placed in a sealed cover
by the DPC. After extracting para 2, we also highlighted the
three conditions prescribed therein. Though, learned ASG has
D mentioned that four charge sheets were issued to the
respondent, enquires were completed and show cause notices
had already been served on the respondent, on the relevant
date, namely, 21.04.2003, when his batch mates were
promoted, none of the conditions was in existence in the case
E of the respondent. Admittedly, the respondent was not placed
under suspension, charge sheet had been issued only on
13.08.2003 i.e. nearly after 4 months, no disciplinary
proceedings were initiated or pending as on 21.04.2003. In
such circumstances, we are of the view that the High Court is
F fully justified in issuing direction based on para 2 of the
memorandum. No doubt, the learned ASG heavily relied on
later part of para 7 of the memorandum which reads as under:
"He shall not be promoted until the conclusion of
disciplinary case/criminal proceedings and the provisions
G
contained in this letter will be applicable in his case also."
Inasmuch as none of the circumstances was in existence
as on 21.04.2003, reliance placed on the later part of para
7 cannot be accepted or even not applicable.
H
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. ANIL KUMAR SARKAR 407
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
13. It is not in dispute that an identical issue was A
considered by this Court in Union of India and Others vs.
K. V.Jankiraman and Others, (1991) 4 sec 109. The common
questions involved in all those matters were:

(1) What is the date from which it can be said that
8
disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending against an
employee? (2) What is the course to be adopted when the
employee is held guilty in such proceedings if the guilt merits
punishment other than that of dismissal? and (3) To what
benefits an employee who is completely or partially exonerated
is entitled to and from which date?. Among the three questions, C
we are concerned about question No.1. As per the rules
applicable, the "sealed cover procedure" is adopted when an
employee is due for promotion, increment etc. but disciplinary/
criminal proceedings are pending against him at the relevant
time and hence, the findings of his entitlement to the benefit are D
kept in a sealed cover to be opened after the proceedings in
question are over. Inasmuch as we are concerned about the
first question, the dictum laid down by this Court relating to the
said issue is as follows:-
E
"16. On the first question, viz., as to when for the purposes
of the sealed cover procedure the disciplinary/criminal
proceedings can be said to have commenced, the Full
Bench of the Tribunal has held that it is only when a charge-
memo in a disciplinary proceedings or a charge-sheet in F
a criminal prosecution is issued to the employee that it can
be said that the departmental proceedings/criminal
prosecution is initiated against the employee. The sealed
cover procedure is to be resorted to only after the charge-
memo/charge-sheet is issued. The pendency of G
preliminary investigation prior to that stage will not be
sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the sealed
cover procedure. We are in agreement with the Tribunal
on this point. The contention advanced by the learned
counsel for the appellant-authorities that when there are H
408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 2 S.C.R.

A serious allegations and it takes time to collect necessary
evidence to prepare and issue charge-memo/charge-
sheet, it would not be in the interest of the purity of
administration to reward the employee with a promotion,
increment etc. does not impress us. The acceptance of this
B contention would result in injustice to the employees in
many cases. As has been the experience so far, the
preliminary investigations take an inordinately long time
and particularly when they are initiated at the instance of
the interested persons, they are kept pending deliberately.
c Many times they never result in the issue of any charge-
memo/charge-sheet. If the allegations are serious and the
authorities are keen in investigating them, ordinarily it
should not take much time to collect the relevant evidence
and finalise the charges. What is further, if the charges are
that serious, the authorities have the power to suspend the
D
employee under the relevant rules, and the suspension by
itself permits a resort to the sealed cover procedure. The
authorities thus are not without a remedy.

In para 17, this Court further held:
E
17.... The conclusion No. 1 should be read to mean that
the promotion etc. cannot be withheld merely because
some disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending
against the employee. To deny the said benefit, they must
F be at the relevant time pending at the stage when charge-
memo/charge-sheet has already been issued to the
employee ... ."
After finding so, in the light of the fact that no charge sheet was
served on the respondent-employee when the DPC met to
G consider his promotion, yet the sealed cover procedure was
adopted. In such circumstances, this Court held that "the
Tribunal has rightly directed the authorities to open the sealed
cover and if the respondent was found fit for promotion by the
DPC, to give him the promotion from the date of his
H immediate junior Shri M. Raja Rao was promoted pursuant
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. ANIL KUMAR SARKAR 409
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
to the order dated April 30, 1986. The Tribunal has also A
directed the authorities to grant to the respondent all the
consequential benefits ..... We see no reason to interfere with
this order. The appeal, therefore, stands dismissed." The
principles laid down with reference to similar office
memorandum are applicable to the case on hand and the B
contrary argument raised by the appellant-Union of India is
liable to be rejected.

14. In Coal India Limited & Ors. vs. Saroj Kumar Mishra,
AIR 2007 SC 1706, this Court, in para 22, has held that a C
departmental proceeding is ordinarily said to be initiated only
when a charge-sheet is issued.

15. In Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India
Limited and Others vs. Ananta Saha and Others, (2011) 5
SCC 142, this Court held as under: D
'27. There can be no quarrel with the settled legal
proposition that the disciplinary proceedings commence
only when a charge-sheet is issued to the delinquent
employee. (Vide Union of India v. K. V. Jankiraman, E
(1991) 4 SCC 109 and UCO Bank v. Rajinder Lal
Capoor, (2007) 6 sec 694)"

We also reiterate that the disciplinary proceedings commence
only when a charge sheet is issued. Departmental proceeding
is normally said to be initiated only when a charge sheet is F
issued.

16. Learned ASG, by drawing our attention to the decision
of this Court in Union of India and Another vs. R.S. Sharma,
(2000) 4 SCC 394 submitted that in spite of decision of this G
Court in Jankiraman's case (supra) in view of para 7 of the
office memorandum and in the light of the fact that proceedings
were initiated both criminal and departmentally, the High Court
committed an error by overlooking para 7 of sealed cover
process and contended that the direction issued by it cannot H
410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 2 S.C.R.

A be sustained. We have carefully gone through the factual
position and the ultimate ratio laid down by this Court in R.S.
Shanna's case (surpa). Even though in the said decision, this
Court has distinguished the decision in Jankiraman's case
(supra) and held that the same is not applicable to its case, in
B the light of the conditions mentioned in para 2 as well as para
7 of the office memorandum dated 14.09.1992 and of the
categorical finding that none of the conditions mentioned
therein has been fulfilled, we are of the view that the decision
in R.S. Shanna's case (supra) is not helpful to the case of the
c appellant.
17. In the light of the above discussion and in view of
factual position as highlighted in the earlier paras, we hold that
the ratio laid down in Jankiraman's case (supra) are fully
applicable to the case on hand, hence we are in agreement
D with the ultimate decision of the High Court. Consequently, the
appeal filed by the Union of India fails and the same is
dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
R.P. Appeal dismissed.