RAM KUMAR vs THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS
- Court
- High Court of Himachal Pradesh
2026:HHC:25586
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
High Court of H.P.
CWP No.3401 of 2026
Reserved on: 03.06.2026
Decided on: 30.06.2026
Uploaded on:30.06.2026
Ram Kumar … Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
1
Whether approved for reporting? Yes
____________________________________________________ _
For the petitioner: Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. R.P. Singh, Deputy Advocate General.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia ,
prayed for the following relief:.
“ i.) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may very
kindly be issued directing the respondents to promote the
petitioner to the post of Deputy Ranger from the date
other persons who were considered in September, 2025,
have been promoted alongwith all consequential benefits
of pay, seniority arrears etc .”
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition
are that the petitioner was appointed as a Forest Guard in the Forest
Department on 17.10.2007. An FIR bearing No.120 of 2023, dated
24.09.2023 was registered under Sections 430, 120.B of the Indian
Penal Code, Section 5 of the HP PID Act and Sections 21 and 23 of
the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act at Police Station
Palampur, District Kangra, H.P., in which the petitioner was also
1
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2026 18:01:54 :::CIS
2
2026:HHC:25586
named as an accused. He was detained by the police on 06.11.2023.
High Court of H.P.
On account of this detention, he was placed under suspension. The
petitioner was, thereafter, reinstated on 15.07.2024 in terms of
Annexure P-2. According to the petitioner, in terms of Annexure P-4,
on the recommendations of Departmental Promotion Committee,
Forest Guards mentioned therein were promoted to the rank of
Deputy Ranger, which also included persons, who were appointed
alongwith the petitioner, but he was ignored and the result was kept
in a Sealed Cover. It is further the case of the petitioner that in the
meanwhile, police presented Challan in FIR number 120 of 2023, in
the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, in which, the charges
had not yet been framed. In terms of the averments made in the
petition, there are 76 accused in the FIR.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the act of
the respondents of not conferring promotion to the petitioner against
the post of Deputy Ranger and keeping his case in a sealed cover is
not sustainable in law. He submitted that the Sealed Cover
procedure could have been followed only if there was a departmental
inquiry initiated against the petitioner or had the charges been
framed against him in the criminal case, but in the absence of both,
the respondents could not have followed the Sealed Cover procedure.
By referring to the judgment dated 22.08.2022, passed by this Court
in CWP No.3466 of 2021, titled Rajeshwar Dayal Janartha Versus
State of Hmachal Pradesh & others, as also the judgment of the
::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2026 18:01:54 :::CIS
3
2026:HHC:25586
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Others Versus K.V. Janaki
High Court of H.P.
Raman & Others (1991) 4 Supreme Court Cases 109 , learned Counsel
submitted that the present petition be allowed by directing the
respondents to open the Sealed Cover and confer promotion to the
petitioner from the due date with seniority and all other benefits.
4. The reply to the petition is to the effect that when the
Departmental Promotion Committee was conducted, on account of
the lodging of an FIR against the petitioner, qua him, the Sealed
Cover procedure was followed in terms of DoPT O.M., dated
14.09.1992 (Annexure R-3/III).
5. Learned Deputy Advocate General argued that in a case
where criminal charges are pending against a Government servant,
the Sealed Cover procedure is applicable and the same was done in
the case of the petitioner also, in the light of the pronouncement of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Others Versus K.V.
Janaki Raman & Others (supra). He submitted that, therefore, as
there is no illegality in the act of the Department in following the
Sealed Cover procedure, the present petition deserves to be
dismissed. No other point was urged.
6. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and also
the learned Deputy Advocate General and having gone through the
pleadings and the documents appended therewith, this Court is of
the considered view that in the facts of this case, the Department
has indeed erred in following the Sealed Cover procedure.
::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2026 18:01:54 :::CIS
4
2026:HHC:25586
7. It is not in dispute that as on the date when the
High Court of H.P.
Departmental Promotion Committee met, recommendations of which
Departmental Promotion Committee resulted in the issuance of
Promotion Order Annexure P-4, dated 25.09.2025, neither any
departmental inquiry was pending against the petitioner, nor
charges stood framed against him in the criminal case pending
against him.
8. This Court in CWP No.3466 of 2021, titled Rajeshwar
Dayal Janartha Versus State of Hmachal Pradesh & others (supra),
by relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
in Union of India & Others Versus K.V. Janaki Raman & Others
(supra) on the issue whether in the absence of framing of charges by
the Trial Court, DPC can keep the result of an incumbent by
following sealed cover procedure, held as under:-
“ 9. The controversy involved in the present case is in a
very narrow compass. The moot issue which is to be
decided by this Court is as to whether the Vigilance
Clearance Certificate (VCC) can be denied to an employee
if as on the date of issuance of the VCC, no charges have
been framed against such an employee by a Criminal
Court or whether filing of investigation report by the
Investigating Officer before the Court concerned is
sufficient to deny the Vigilance Clearance Certificate. At
this stage itself, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs.
K.V. Jankiraman, (1991) 4 Supreme Court Cases 109. In
the said case, the question involved which stood decided
::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2026 18:01:54 :::CIS
5
2026:HHC:25586
by Hon’ble Supreme Court stands culled out in para-8 of
High Court of H.P.
the judgment, which para is reproduced herein below:-
“8. The common questions involved in all these
matters relate to what in service jurisprudence has
come to be known as "sealed cover procedure".
Concisely stated, the questions are:(1) what is the
date from which it can be said that
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? (3) To what benefits an employee
who is completely or partially exonerated is entitled
to and from which date?' 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 kept in a sealed cover to be opened after
the proceedings in question are over'. Hence, the
relevance and importance of the questions.”
10. This Court is concerned with the question No. 1
framed by Hon’ble Supreme Court, i.e. “what is the date
from which it can be said that disciplinary/criminal
proceedings are pending against an employee?’’ The
first question was decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court
as under
:-
“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 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
::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2026 18:01:54 :::CIS
6
2026:HHC:25586
preliminary investigation prior to that stage will not be
High Court of H.P.
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 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 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. Many
times they never result in the issue of any charge-
memo/chargesheet. 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 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. It was then contended
on behalf of the authorities that conclusions nos. 1 and
4 of the Full Bench of the Tribunal are inconsistent with
each other. Those conclusions are as follows: (ATC p.
196, para 39)
"(1) consideration for promotion, selection grade,
crossing the efficiency bar or higher scale of pay
cannot be withheld merely on the ground of
::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2026 18:01:54 :::CIS
7
2026:HHC:25586
pendency of a disciplinary or criminal proceedings
against an official;
(2) *
(3) *
(4) the sealed cover procedure can be resorted only
after a charge memo is served on the concerned
official or the charge sheet filed before the criminal
court and not before;” 17. There' is no doubt
that there is a seeming contradiction between the
two conclusions. But read harmoniously, and that is
what the Full Bench has intended, the two
conclusions can be reconciled with each other. 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 be at the relevant time pending at the stage
when charge-memo/charge-sheet has already been
issued to the employee. Thus read, there is no
inconsistency in the two conclusions.
18. We, therefore, repel the challenge of the
appellant- authorities to the said finding of the Full
Bench of the Tribunal.”
High Court of H.P.
1 1. This Court is of the considered view that Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India has clearly and in
unambiguous terms laid down the law that criminal
proceedings can be said to be pending against an
employee only after the charges have been framed.
Charges are framed by a Court. Any other
interpretation of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
Court will do violence with the judgment for the
reasons that filing of the investigation report on the
basis of lodging of the FIR by the Investigating Officer
in terms of the provisions of Section 173 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure before the Trial Court cannot
be treated to be the date from which it can be said
that criminal proceedings are pending against an
employee. The filing of the investigation report is a
statutory duty enshrined upon the Investigating
::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2026 18:01:54 :::CIS
8
2026:HHC:25586
Officer in terms of provisions of Section 173 of the
High Court of H.P.
Code of Criminal Procedure, and it is only after the
Court, upon perusal of the investigation report and
after hearing the accused, frames charges against the
accused, then, it can be said that criminal
proceedings stand initiated against the accused. In
this regard, it is relevant to refer to an order passed
by Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. Nos. 941
and 1131 of 2011, titled as Chacko Eapen Vs. Union of
India and others (OA No. 941 of 2011) and
Raghunathan.M.V. and others Vs. Union of India and
th
others (OA No. 1131 of 2011) , decided on 8 February,
2012, in para-5 whereof, learned Tribunal, after
placing reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in K.V. Jankiraman, has held as
under :-
In the light of the O.Ms cited above, in the instant
“5.
case, sealed cover procedure is applicable only when
prosecution for criminal charge is pending. As stated
by the respondents, vigilance clearance was not
granted to the applicants as a charge sheet has been
filed against the applicants in the Court. As per O.M.
dated 25.10.2004, a simple vigilance clearance
would need to be furnished where none of the three
conditions in O.M. dated 14.09.1992 has arisen.
Therefore, the issue to be decided is whether a
criminal case is pending against the applicants. A
criminal case can be said to be pending only after
issuance of a charge sheet by the competent Court to
the accused. The relevant extract from the judgement
of the Apex Court in Union of India vs. K.V.
Janakiraman, AIR 1991 SC 2010, is reproduced as
under:
"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 been commenced, the Full Bench of the
Tribunal has held that it is only when a charge
memo in a disciplinary proceeding or a charge sheet
in a criminal prosecution is issued to the employee
::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2026 18:01:54 :::CIS
9
2026:HHC:25586
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 filed. The pendency of 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 serious
allegations and it takes time to collect necessary
evidence to prepare and issue charges memo/
charge sheet, it would not be in the interest of purity
of administration to reward the employee with
promotions, increment etc. does not impress us. The
acceptance of this contention would result in
injustice to the employees in many cases."
(emphasis supplied) ”
High Court of H.P.
12. This Court is of the considered view that a person
against whom criminal prosecution is filed can be said
to be charge sheeted in those proceedings only after
the framing of the charges against him. Before the
charges are framed, a person can always seek his
discharge and in case the person is able to make out a
case for his discharge, then, the learned Court can
pass appropriate orders discharging him and by
dropping the case against him. Mere filing of the
investigating report by the Investigating Officer before
the Court concerned, cannot be said to be the stage of
initiation of prosecution. Therefore also, the denial of
Vigilance Clearance Certificate to the petitioner on the
ground that as on the date concerned, the charge sheet
stood filed by the Investigating Officer before the Court
concerned is not sustainable in law.
13. Chapter 16.24 of the Hand Book on Personnel
Matters Vol-I, deals with the principles for promotion to
the “Selection” and “Non-Selection” posts. Chapter
::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2026 18:01:54 :::CIS
10
2026:HHC:25586
16.32 deals with consideration of cases where
High Court of H.P.
disciplinary/Court proceedings etc. are pending. In this
Chapter, it is provided that in the following cases of
Government Servants, sealed cover procedure will be
applicable:-
“(i) Cases of Government servants to whom
Sealed Cover Procedure will be applicable
At the time of consideration of the cases of
Government servants for promotion, details of
Government servants in the consideration zone for
promotion falling under the following categories for
whom sealed cover procedure is to be adopted
should be specifically brought to the notice of the
Departmental Promotion Committee:-
(a) Government servants under suspension
(b) Government servants in respect of whom a charge
sheet has been issued and disciplinary proceedings
are pending; and
(c) Government servants in respect of whom prosecution
for a criminal charge is pending.”
14. The Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and
Pensions (Department of Personnel & Training), in
terms of office memorandum dated 02.11.2012
(Annexure P-18), on the subject “Comprehensive review
of instructions pertaining to vigilance clearance for
promotion-regarding”, after taking into consideration
the pronouncement of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in K.V. Jankiraman’s case (supra) issued the
three guidelines. The three guidelines referred to in
para-2 of Department’s O.M. dated 14.09.1992, are as
under:-
“(i) Government servants under suspension;
(ii) Government servants in respect of whom a charge
sheet has been issued and the disciplinary
proceedings are pending; and
(iii) Government servants in respect of whom
prosecution for a criminal charge is pending.”
::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2026 18:01:54 :::CIS
11
2026:HHC:25586
15. In this office memorandum, reference has also
High Court of H.P.
been made to Rule 9(6)(b)(i) of CCS (Pension) Rules,
1972, which provides as under:-
“(b) judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be
instituted-
(i) In the case of criminal proceedings, on
the date of which the complaint or report of a
Police Officer, of which the Magistrate takes
cognizance, is made.”
16. The un-amended Clause 6.4 of the Vigilance
Manual of the Government of Himachal Pradesh was as
under:-
“6.4. The vigilance clearance certificate will not be
issued by the Vigilance Department or the competent
authority as the case may be in respect of a
Government servant if-
(1) His name figures in the list of officers of
doubtful integrity, or
(2) Regular department action against him has
been advised by the Vigilance Department, or
(3) A case of vigilance nature is pending against
him in a court of law, or
But the vigilance clearance certificate will be issued
by the competent authority or the Vigilance
Department as the case may be in respect of
Government servant in all other cases.”
17. After the amendment was carried out in Clause
6.4 vide Annexure P-20, now the same reads as under :
“6.4 “The vigilance clearance certificate will not be
issued by the Vigilance Department or the competent
authority as the case may be in respect of a
Government servant if-
1. He/she is under suspension; or
2. In respect of whom a charge sheet has been
issued and the disciplinary proceedings are
pending; or
3. Against whom prosecution for a criminal charge is
pending.
Note:- As regards the stage when prosecution for a
criminal charge can be stated to be pending, the
Rule-9(6)(b)(i) of CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 shall be
followed which provides as under:
::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2026 18:01:54 :::CIS
12
2026:HHC:25586
“(b) judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be
instituted-
(i) In the cases of criminal proceedings, on the
date on which the complaint or report of a Police
Officer, of which the Magistrate takes cognizance, is
made”
High Court of H.P.
But the vigilance clearance certificate will be issued
by the competent authority or the Vigilance
Department as the case may be in respect of a
Government servant in all other cases.”
18. Clause 3 of the amended para 6.4 has to be read
down to mean that a criminal charge has to be
construed to be pending against an incumbent only
after charges stands framed against him by the
competent Court of law and thereafter charge sheet
stands issued to him. By no stretch of imagination, it
can be held that judicial proceedings can be deemed
to be pending against an incumbent on the date on
which an investigation report is submitted the officer
in terms of the provisions of Section 173 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. This Court would again like to lay
stress on the fact that Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
in K.V. Jankiraman’s case (supra) has categorically
held while answering question No. 1 “as to when for
the purpose of sealed cover procedure, disciplinary
proceedings can be said to have commenced”, that the
same can be said to have been commenced only when
a charge sheet in a criminal prosecution is issued to
the employee. Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld the
findings of the learned Tribunal that sealed cover
procedure is to be resorted to only when a charge
sheet is issued.
19. Chapter-XII of the Criminal Procedure Code,
1973, deals with information to the Police and their
powers to investigate. Section 173 of the same
::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2026 18:01:54 :::CIS
13
2026:HHC:25586
provides for report of the Police Officer on completion
High Court of H.P.
of investigation. This section is reproduced herein
below:-
“Report of police officer on completion of
investigation.
(1) Every investigation under this Chapter shall be
completed without unnecessary delay.
(2) (i) As soon as it is completed, the officer in charge
of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate
empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a
police report, a report in the form prescribed by the
State Government, stating-
(a) the names of the parties;
(b) the nature of the information;
(c) the names of the persons who appear to be
acquainted with the circumstances of the case;
(d) whether any offence appears to have been
committed and, if so, by whom;
(e) whether the accused has been arrested;
(f) whether he has been released on his bond and, if
so, weather with or without sureties;
(g) whether he has been forwarded in custody under
section 170.
(ii) The officer shall also communicate, In such
manner as may be prescribed by the State
Government, the action taken by him, to the person,
if any, by whom the information relating to the
commission of the offence was first given.
(3) Where a superior officer of police has been
appointed under section 158, the report shall, in any
case in which the State Government by general or
special order so directs, be submitted through that
officer, and he may, pending the orders of the
Magistrate, direct the officer in charge of the police
station to make further investigation,
(4) Whenever it appears from a report forwarded
under this section that the accused has been
released on his bond, the Magistrate shall make
such order- for the discharge of such bond or
otherwise as he thinks fit.
(5) When such report is in respect of a case to which
section 170 applies, the police officer shall forward to
the Magistrate alongwith the report-
(a) all documents or relevant extracts thereof on
which the prosecution proposes to rely other than
::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2026 18:01:54 :::CIS
14
2026:HHC:25586
those already sent to the Magistrate during
investigation;
(b) the statements- recorded under section 161 of all
the persons whom the prosecution proposes to
examine as its witnesses.
(6) If the police officer is of opinion that any part of
any such statement is not relevant to the subject-
matter of the proceedings or that its disclosure to the
accused is not essential in the interests of justice
and is inexpedient in the public interest, he shall
indicate that part of the statement and append a
note requesting the Magistrate to exclude that part
from the copies to be granted to the accused and
stating his reasons for making such request.
(7) Where the police officer investigating the case
finds it convenient so to do, he may furnish to the
accused copies of all or any of the documents
referred to in sub- section (5).
(8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to
preclude further investigation in respect of an offence
after a report under sub- section (2) has been
forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such
investigation, the officer in charge of the police
station obtains further evidence, oral or
documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a
further report or reports regarding such evidence in
the form prescribed; and the provisions of sub-
sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in
relation to such report or reports as they apply in
relation to a report forwarded under sub- section (2).”
High Court of H.P.
20. Thus a careful perusal of Section 173
demonstrates that the same provides that as soon as
the investigation is completed, the officer in-charge of
the Police Station shall forward to the Magistrate
empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a
police report “a report in the form prescribed by the
State Government, stating—
(a) The names of the parties;
(b) The nature of the information;
(c) The names of the persons who appears to be
acquainted with the circumstances of the case;
(d) Whether any offence appears to be have been
committed and, if so, by whom;
(e) Whether the accused has been arrested;
::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2026 18:01:54 :::CIS
15
2026:HHC:25586
(f) Whether he has been released on his bond and,
if so, whether with or without sureties;
High Court of H.P.
(g) Whether he has been forwarded in custody
under section 170;
(h) Whether the report of medical examination of the
woman has been attached where investigation relates
to an offence under section 376, 376A, 376B, 376C
[Section 376D or section 376E of the Indian Penal Code
(45 of 1860)]
21. Now incidentally, Section 173 nowhere uses the
word ‘charge sheet’. Word ‘charge’ finds mention in
Chapter XVII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which
Chapter contains Sections 211 to 244 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. Section 211 of the Code deals with
the contents of charge and the same reads as under :-
“ 211. Contents of charge .
(1) Every charge under this Code shall state the
offence with which the accused is charged.
(2) If the law which creates the offence gives it any
specific- name, the offence may be described in the
charge by that name only.
(3) If the law which creates the offence does not give
it any specific name, so much of the definition of the
offence must be stated as to give the accused notice
of the matter with which he is charged.
(4) The law and section of the law against which the
offence is said to have been committed shall be
mentioned in the charge.
(5) The fact that the charge is made is equivalent to a
statement that every legal condition required by law
to constitute the offence charged was fulfilled in the
particular case.
(6) The charge shall be written in the language of the
Court.
(7) If the accused, having been previously convicted
of any offence, is liable, by reason of such previous
conviction, to enhanced punishment, or to
punishment of a different kind, for a subsequent
offence, and it is intended to prove such previous
conviction for the purpose of affecting the
punishment which the Court may think fit to award
for the subsequent offence, the fact, date and place
of the previous conviction shall be stated in the
charge; and if such statement has been omitted, the
::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2026 18:01:54 :::CIS
16
2026:HHC:25586
Court may add it at any time before sentence is
passed.
Illustrations
(a) A is charged with the murder of B. This is
equivalent to a statement that A' s act fell within the
definition of murder given in sections 299 and 300 of
the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ); that it did not
fall within any of the general exceptions of the said
Code; and that it did not fall within any of the five
exceptions to section 300, or that, if it did fall within
Exception 1, one or other of the three provisos to that
exception applied to it.
(b) A is charged under section 326 of the Indian
Penal Code (45 of 1860 ), with voluntarily causing
grievous hurt to B by means of an instrument for
shooting. This is equivalent to a statement that the
case was not provided for by section 335 of the said
Code-, and that the general exceptions did not apply
to it.
(c) A is accused of murder, cheating, theft, extortion,
adultery or criminal intimidation, or using a false
property- mark. The charge may state that A
committed murder, or cheating, or theft, or extortion,
or adultery, or criminal intimidation, or that he used
a false property- mark, without reference to the
definitions of those crimes contained in the Indian
Penal Code (45 of 1860 ); but the sections under
which the offence is punishable must, in each
instance, be referred to in the charge.
(d) A is charged under section 184 of the Indian
Penal Code (45 of 1860 ) with intentionally
obstructing a sale of property offered for sale by the
lawful authority of a public servant. The charge
should be in those words.”
22. Chapter XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure
High Court of H.P.
deals with commencement of proceedings before
Magistrates and close scrutiny of the provisions of
Section 204 to 210 also demonstrates that in none of
these statutory provisions, the word ‘çharge sheet’ is
used. Section 207 of the Code also provides for supply
to the accused of copy of police report and other
documents in any case where the proceedings have
been instituted on a police report. This Section also does
::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2026 18:01:54 :::CIS
17
2026:HHC:25586
not the word ‘çharge sheet’. Therefore, a criminal
High Court of H.P.
charge can be stated to be pending against an
incumbent only when a charge sheet is served upon the
accused and which obviously will follow the framing of
the charge and thus by no stretch of imagination it can
be held that a prosecution for criminal charge can be
said to be pending against an employee before the
charges are framed. Clause 3 of the amended para 6.4
of the Himachal Pradesh Vigilance Manual is thus read
down as above. Meaning thereby that the Vigilance
Clearance Certificate cannot be withheld in respect of a
government servant against whom charges have not yet
been framed in a criminal case and the said certificate
cannot be withheld only on the ground that the police
report stands filed before the Magistrate concerned
under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code. If we
apply the above discussion to the facts of the present
case, it is abundantly clearly that adopting of sealed
cover procedure in the case of the present petitioner
was totally uncalled for because Vigilance Clearance
Certificate could not have been denied in favour of the
petitioner as it is not in dispute at all that as on the
date when the Vigilance Clearance Certificate was
requisitioned or when the DPC met for consideration of
eligible candidates for promotion to the post of
Additional Excise and Taxation Commissioner, charges
had yet not been framed in the criminal case against
the petitioner.
23. Accordingly, in view of above discussion, this
petition is allowed. Amendment carried out in terms of
Clause 3 of para 6.4 to Chapter-II of Himachal Pradesh
Vigilance Manual in terms of Annexure P-20, dated
::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2026 18:01:54 :::CIS
18
2026:HHC:25586
27.10.2017, to the effect that it stands mentioned
High Court of H.P.
therein that the Vigilance Clearance Certificate will not
be issued by the Vigilance Department or the competent
authority in respect of a Government servant if against
him prosecution for a criminal charge is pending, is read
down to mean that prosecution for a criminal charge can
be construed to be pending against an employee only if
charges stand framed against him by the competent
Court of law and thereafter charge sheet stands issued
to him and not on the basis of date of submission of the
final report in terms of Section 173 of the Criminal
Procedure Code. This provision is read down as
mentioned herein above, in light of law declared by
Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.V. Jankiraman’s case
(supra). Therefore, the act of the respondent-Department
of denying Vigilance Clearance Certificate to the
petitioner for his being considered for promotion to the
post of Additional Excise and Taxation Commissioner is
held to be bad in law for the reason that Vigilance
Clearance Certificate could not have been denied in
favour of the petitioner until and unless charges stood
framed against him on the date concerned by the Court
of law in the criminal case. Further, the act of the
respondent-Department of following sealed cover
procedure in the case of the petitioner is also held to be
bad in law and it is directed that sealed cover be
opened forthwith, and in case, the name of the
petitioner is found recommended for promotion to the
post in issue, then, said recommendation be given effect
to forthwith and the petitioner be promoted as from the
date when respondent No. 4 was promoted to the post in
::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2026 18:01:54 :::CIS
19
2026:HHC:25586
issue, with all consequential benefits, including
High Court of H.P.
monetary and seniority .”
9. Thus, in terms of the judgment of this Court, it stands
clarified that in terms of the provisions of the Handbook on Personal
Matters, Chapter 16.324 and Chapter 16.32 of Volume-I thereof,
Sealed Cover procedure is applicable where Government servants are
under suspension or Government servants in respect of whom a
Charge Sheet has been issued and disciplinary proceedings are
pending or Government servants in respect of whom prosecution for
a criminal charge is pending. This Court has explained that the
meaning of the pendency of a criminal charge means that the
charges should have been framed against the accused by the
Criminal Court and simple filing of the Challan in an FIR under
Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure does not mean that the same
amounts to pendency of a criminal charge against the incumbent.
10. In the present case, admittedly, no charges stood framed
by the learned Trial Court as on the date when the Departmental
Promotion Committee met or even on the date when the promotion
orders were issued. On the said date, the petitioner was not under
suspension nor was facing a Departmental Inquiry also.
11. Therefore, in these peculiar circumstances, the
Departmental Promotion Committee was not only required to
consider the name of the petitioner, but was also required to
recommend the name if found eligible for promotion and there was
no occasion for following the Sealed Cover procedure.
::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2026 18:01:54 :::CIS
20
2026:HHC:25586
12. Therefore, as the following of Sealed Cover procedure in
High Court of H.P.
the facts of the present case is not sustainable, the same is held to
be bad. The respondents are directed to forthwith open the Sealed
Cover and in case the Departmental Promotion Committee has
recommended the name of the petitioner for promotion, then
promotion be conferred upon him against the post of Forest Guard
from due date, that is the date when persons similarly situated as
the petitioner were promoted, by granting him all consequential
benefits including seniority as well as monetary benefits.
13. The petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous
application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
June 30, 2026
(Rishi)
::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2026 18:01:54 :::CIS