2000 (4) TMI 797 - SC - Indian Laws

Is that Divisional Engineer in the Telecom Department promotion to the next tier in the cadre (senior time scale in the Indian Telecommunication Service Group A) has been temporarily sealed on account of erroneously adhering to the Sealed Cover Procedure Held that - Appeal allowed. The Tribunal has erred in overlooking paragraph 7 of the Sealed Cover Procedure and hence the direction issued by it as per the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.

Summary

Issues:
Promotion sealed due to Sealed Cover Procedure.

Analysis:
The respondent, a Divisional Engineer in the Telecom Department, faced allegations of financial misdemeanors, leading to suspension and investigation by the CBI. The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) deferred his promotion pending investigation. The Tribunal directed the DPC to open the sealed cover and consider the respondent's promotion, which was challenged by the Union of India and the Chief General Manager of Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.

The Sealed Cover Procedure, as per the Government of India's Office Memorandum, required cases involving serious allegations to be put in sealed cover during promotion considerations. The respondent's case fell under this procedure due to the ongoing investigation. A subsequent memorandum deleted the clause requiring sealed cover for cases under investigation, but clarified that other conditions could still warrant keeping cases sealed.

The CBI sought sanction to prosecute the respondent, which was granted by the President later. The Additional Solicitor General argued that the DPC's recommendations should remain sealed under clause (iii) of the Sealed Cover Procedure. The respondent's counsel contended that the Department delayed compliance with the memorandum, preventing the respondent's promotion.

The court considered Paragraph 7 of the Sealed Cover Procedure, which applied to cases where circumstances changed after DPC recommendations but before actual promotion. As the respondent was not promoted and faced prosecution, his case fell under this clause. The court rejected the respondent's argument that the Department's delay prevented his promotion, stating that the Department's interpretation of the Sealed Cover Procedure was valid.

The court referenced previous judgments regarding the application of the Sealed Cover Procedure, emphasizing that the respondent's ongoing trial distinguished his case from those where public servants were exonerated. Ultimately, the court found the Tribunal erred in overlooking Paragraph 7 of the Sealed Cover Procedure and set aside the direction to open the sealed cover for the respondent's promotion.