Pawan Kaul vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr.

$~68
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8555/2021, CM APPL. 27307/2022
PAWAN KAUL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mohit Siwach, Mr. Karan
Sharma, Mr. Harsh Gautam and Ms. Khyati
Goel, Advs.
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
& ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Arun Birbal, Adv. Mr.
Devvrat Yadav, SPC with Mr. Gaurav Patel,
GP
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 05.05.2026
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. This writ petition assails judgment dated 14 October 2020
1
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA 1543/2020.
2. By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has dismissed the OA
which had been filed by the petitioner before it.
3. The facts are brief.
4. On 24 June 2019, the petitioner was promoted from the post of
1
“the Tribunal” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:11.05.2026
16:56:53
W.P.(C) 8555/2021 Page 1 of 11

2 3
Junior Secretarial Assistant to Senior Secretarial Assistant in the
4
Delhi Development Authority .
5. While he was employed as SSA, the DDA issued a show cause
notice to the petitioner, apropos a criminal case instituted against the
petitioner by his wife by way of FIR 183/2016, under Section 498A
and other connected proceedings of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code
1860, which also resulted in a charge-sheet filed before the learned
Mahila Court on 24 August 2018.
6. Consequent on the petitioner filing a response, the DDA, by
order dated 5 October 2020, withdrew the promotion of the petitioner
and reverted him to the post of JSA. It is that order which forms
subject matter of the challenge before the Tribunal. It is necessary,
therefore, for us to reproduce the order, in its entirety, thus:
“DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Personnel Branch-III
rd
Block-S, 3 Floor, Vlkas Sadan, INA, New Delhi
No. F7(224)13/PB-III/1431 Dated: 05/10/2020
ORDER
WHEREAS the applications were Invited for Limited
Departmental Examination for the post of Senior Secretariat
Assistant (SSA) vide circular No.45 dated 17.12.2018.
AND WHEREAS Sh. Pawan Kaul, SSA (the then JSA) S/o
Sh. Shiv Charan applied for taking the said examination.
AND WHEREAS the said examination was held as per the
schedule issued vide Circular No. 32 dated 08.05.2019 i.e. on
2
“JSA” hereinafter
3
“SSA” hereinafter
4
“the DDA” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:11.05.2026
16:56:53
W.P.(C) 8555/2021 Page 2 of 11

28.05.2019 & 09.06.2019.
AND WHEREAS the result was declared vide E.O. No.
680 dated 10.06.2019 and Sh. Pawan Kaul was also declared
successful and after obtaining the VCR, all successful candidates
including Sh. Pawan Kaul, were promoted to the post of SSA vide
E.O. No. 739 dated 24.06.2019.
AND WHEREAS a complaint dated 06.03.2020 was
received on 11.03.2020 against Sh. Pawan Kaul, SSA inter alia
alleging that Sh. Pawan Kaul was facing criminal prosecution in
case No. 3774/2018 (FIR No. 183/2016) under Section 498-
A/406/34, IPC and the charge sheet was already filed in the court
of Ms. Shivani Chauhan, MM, Mahila Court, South-West, Dwarka.
AND WHEREAS a copy of the said complaint was
provided to Sh. Pawan Kaul, SSA vide letter dated 04.06.2020 with
the direction to submit his version on the points mentioned in the
said complaint.
AND WHEREAS Sh. Pawan Kaul, SSA submitted his
version vide letter dated 19.06.2020 inter alia that his wife had
lodged FIR No. 183/16 under Section 498-A and the charge sheet
was filed before the Hon’ble Court of MM, Mahila Court-01 on
25.04.2018. He has further mentioned that he was summoned by
the Hon’ble Court during March, 2019 for appearance on
24.03.2019. He has further intimated that he has filed a divorce
petition as HMA No. 1828/2018 before Rohini Courts titled Pawan
Kaul Vs Reena Koli.
AND WHEREAS the DoPT has issued O.M. dated
l4.09.1992 on the basis of the judgement dated 27.08.1991 of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled Union of India etc.
Vs K.V. Jankiraman etc. (AIR 1991 SC 2010) inter alia laying
down that the recommendations of DPC in respect of Govt.
Servants, who are facing prosecution for criminal charge, shall be
placed in sealed cover. The said provision is also applicable in case
of promotions on the basis of limited Departmental Examinations.
AND WHEREAS the said Sh. Pawan Kaul, SSA failed to
intimate the department about the filling of charge sheet in the
court of MM, Mahi1a Court-01 on 25.042018 and therefore, this
fact could not be linked with his promotion and accordingly he was
erroneously promoted to the post of SSA on 24.06.2019.
AND WHEREAS the said Sh. Pawan Kaul, SSA was called
upon to show cause within 03 days as to why his promotion to the
post of SSA vide E.O. No. 739 dated 24.06.2019 should not be
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:11.05.2026
16:56:53
W.P.(C) 8555/2021 Page 3 of 11

withdrawn and the result be kept pending till finalization of
criminal prosecution in 3774/2018 (FIR No. 183/2016) under
Section 498-A/406/34, IPC. He was also advised to note that if no
explanation is received within the stipulated time or the
explanation is found not satisfactory, further action, as deemed fit,
will be taken without any further notice.
AND WHEREAS the said Sh. Pawan Kaul, SSA submitted
his explanation vide his letter dated 17.09.2020 & 21.09.2020
admitting the fact of pendency of the criminal case under Section
498-A/406/34, IPC. He has also not denied that he had failed to
intimate the department about the filing of charge sheet in the court
of MM, Mahila Court-01 on 25.04.2018 in the said case. However,
he has clarified vide his letter dated 21.09.2020 that he had
intimated on 10.11.2016 about receipt of a notice under Section
41(A), Cr.P.C. from the office of DCP, Unit Women & Children,
Nanak Pura, New Delhi for appearance on 16.11.2016. A perusal
of the reply further reveals that none of the judgments of Hon’ble
Courts cited by him bars withholding of promotion either through
DPC or through Limited Departmental Examination in case of
pendency of such criminal prosecution. The judgments cited by the
official also do not say that the O.M. dated 14.09.2022 issued by
DoPT on the basis of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in case of K.V. Jankiraman is not applicable in cases relating
to criminal prosecution under Section 498-A, IPC. His contention
that such a case does not involve moral turpitude lacks support of
law or rules. He has failed to cite any rule position to support his
contention.
AND WHEREAS the undersigned has carefully gone
through the facts of the case, rule position and also the explanation
submitted by the said official and finds that explanation submitted
by the said official is not satisfactory. The instructions issued by
DoP&T do not offer any reprieve in such cases. Sh. Pawan Kaul,
SSA is the main accused in the above mentioned criminal case.
AND WHEREAS the undersigned is of the considered
view that the ends of the justice would be met if he is reverted to
the grade of JSA till the criminal proceedings are finalized by the
court of competent jurisdiction.
NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned, being the
appointing authority by virtue of powers conferred under the DDA
Conduct, Disciplinary & Appeal Regulations, 1999 hereby
withdraws the result declared vide E.O. No. 680 dated 10.06.2019
and promotion orders to the post of SSA issued vide E.O. No. 739
dated 24.06.2019 in respect of Sh. Pawan Kaul, SSA.
Consequently, the said Sh. Pawan Kaul, SSA is reverted to the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:11.05.2026
16:56:53
W.P.(C) 8555/2021 Page 4 of 11

grade of JSA w.e.f 24.06.2019 (AN) with all consequences to
follow, till a decision is taken after finalization of the above
mentioned criminal proceedings by the court of competent
jurisdiction.
Sd/-
(Rajiv Gandhi)
Commissioner (P)/Appointing Authority”
7. The Tribunal adopted the view that, as the petitioner was facing
criminal proceedings, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of
5
India v. K.V. Jankiraman would apply, read with Office
Memorandum dated 14 September 1992 issued by the Department of
6
Personnel & Training . The Tribunal was of the view that as per the
decision in Jankiraman read with DOPT OM dated 14 September
1992, the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion
7
Committee which considered the petitioner’s case for promotion as
SSA was required to be relegated to a sealed cover, and it was only
after the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal proceedings that the
sealed cover could be opened and the recommendations of the DPC
acted upon.
8. Paras 6 and 7 of the judgment of the Tribunal read thus:
“6. Whether it was on account of the failure on the part of the
applicant to inform the respondents about the pendency of the
criminal case or on account of any inadvertent mistake or omission
on the part of the respondents, the applicant was promoted, even
while the criminal case filed against him was pending. The only
course open to the respondents was to withdraw the promotion and
the same was done through the impugned order.
7. We do not find any merit in the OA and accordingly
5
(1991) 4 SCC 109
6
“the DOPT” hereinafter
7
“DPC” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:11.05.2026
16:56:53
W.P.(C) 8555/2021 Page 5 of 11

dismissed. It is, however, directed that the case of the applicant
shall be treated as the one in the sealed cover and in the event of
his acquittal in the criminal case, the promotion shall be restored to
him. There shall be no order as to costs.”
9. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the petitioner has
approached this Court by means of the present writ petition.
10. We may note, incidentally, that while issuing notice in this writ
petition on 17 August 2021, this court had observed that the DOPT
OM dated 14 September 1992 envisaged periodical reconsiderations
of the case of an employee which had been relegated to the sealed
cover and who was facing criminal proceedings and, on the expiry of
two years from the placing of his case in the sealed cover,
consideration of his case for ad hoc promotion to the next post.
Learned Counsel for the respondent was therefore directed to the take
instructions on the said aspect.
11. However, it appears to us that the very invocation of the sealed
cover procedure was not justified in a case where the petitioner had
been appointed as SSA consequent to an LDCE and not a regular
promotion by a DPC. The Tribunal has clearly proceeded on the
premise that the petitioner was promoted as SSA by a DPC and has,
therefore, directed that the recommendations of the DPC be consigned
to a sealed cover and opened after the petitioner’s criminal
proceedings conclude.
12. We, therefore, granted time to Mr. Birbal, learned Counsel for
the DDA, to address us on the question of whether the sealed cover
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:11.05.2026
16:56:53
W.P.(C) 8555/2021 Page 6 of 11

procedure was at all applicable in a case of appointment to a higher
post consequent on an LDCE.
13. The order dated 5 October 2020, whereby the petitioner was
reverted to the post of JSA, incidentally, observes that the DOPT OM
dated 14 September 1992 also applies to LDCEs.
14. Mr. Birbal has, by way of response to our query, handed over a
Circular dated 12 April 2022 issued by the Department of Posts, from
which he places emphasis on the first two paragraphs which read thus:
“I am directed to refer to D.G. P&T Letter no. 7/31/63-SPB-II
dated 25.06.1965 pertaining to instructions dealing with allowing
officials to appear in Departmental Examination against whom
departmental proceedings/criminal prosecution are pending.
2. The above mentioned provision related to Departmental
Examination have been reviewed in consultation with Department
of Personnel and Training (DoPT). It has been decided that
instructions related to promotion of Government servant through
DPC against whom disciplinary case / criminal prosecution is
pending, as issued vide DoPT O.M. No. 22011/4/91-Estt.(A) dated
14.09.1992, amended from time to time shall be applicable mutatis
mutandis in case of promotion through Limited Departmental
Competitive Examination (LDCE) also.”
15. On the fact of it, the reliance on the aforesaid Circular is
misconceived. In the first place, the Circular has been issued by the
Department of Posts and not by the DOPT. In the second place, the
Circular has been issued in 2022, after the date when the petitioner
was reverted from SSA to JSA on 5 October 2020 and could not,
therefore, apply to the petitioner at all. Thirdly, a reading of para 2 of
the circular indicates that it is the DOPT which has come to a
conclusion, on the basis of 14 September 1992 DOPT OM, that the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:11.05.2026
16:56:53
W.P.(C) 8555/2021 Page 7 of 11

OM also applies to cases of LDCE, but the Department of Posts. This
impression cannot bind the petitioner, who is not an employee of
Department of Posts, nor can it bind this Court.
16. Nonetheless, we have ourselves perused the DOPT OM dated
14 September 1992 from which we may deem it appropriate to
reproduce the following paragraphs:
No. 22011/4/91-Estt.(A)
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCE
AND PENSIONS
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & TRAINING
North Block, New Delhi-110001,
th
Dated the 14 Sept. 1992
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Sub: Promotion of Government servants against whom
disciplinary/Court proceedings are pending or whose Conduct
is under investigation. Procedure and guidelines to be followed .
The undersigned is directed to refer to Department of
Personnel & Training O.M. No. 22011/2/86-Estt.(A) dated 12th
January, 1988 and subsequent instructions issued from time to time
on the above subject and to say that the procedure and guidelines to
be followed in the matter of promotion of government servants
against whom disciplinary/court proceedings are pending or whose
conduct is under investigation have been reviewed carefully.
Government have also noticed the judgment dated 27.8.1991 of the
Supreme Court in Union of India etc. v. K.V. Jankiraman etc. (AIR
1991 SC 2010). As a result of the review and in supersession of all
the earlier instructions on the subject (referred to in the margin),
the procedure to be followed in this regard by the authorities
concerned is laid down in the subsequent paras of this OM for their
guidance.
Cases of Government Servants to whom Sealed Cover
Procedure will be applicable.
2. At the time of consideration of the cases of Government
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:11.05.2026
16:56:53
W.P.(C) 8555/2021 Page 8 of 11

servants for promotion, details of Government servants in the
consideration zone for promotion falling under the following
categories should be specifically brought to the notice of the
Departmental Promotion Committee:
(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.”
17. The DOPT OM dated 14 September 1992, clearly, applies only
to promotion following a DPC. In fact, the OM also acknowledges
that the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.V. Jankiraman also
applies to promotion by DPC.
18. Inasmuch as the petitioner was made SSA following an LDCE,
there could be no question of applying the sealed cover procedure, the
judgment in K V Jankiraman or the DOPT OM dated 14 September
1992.
19. The Tribunal has not addressed the merits of the petitioner’s
challenge, on the premise that the sealed cover procedure, the
judgment in K V Jankiraman and the DOPT OM dated 14 September
1992 apply. Following this erroneous premise, the Tribunal has
relegated the petitioner’s case to the sealed cover and directed that the
sealed cover be opened only after the criminal proceedings conclude.
20. As the sealed cover procedure and the DOPT OM dated 14
September 1992 do not apply in the present case, the impugned
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:11.05.2026
16:56:53
W.P.(C) 8555/2021 Page 9 of 11

judgment of the Tribunal, which is based solely on this erroneous
premise, cannot sustain. It is, accordingly, quashed and set aside.
21. It is not necessary to remit the matter to the Tribunal, as the
order dated 5 October 2020, reverting the petitioner from the post of
SSA to the post of JSA, is also passed solely on the basis of the DOPT
OM dated 14 September 1992 read with the judgment of the Supreme
Court in K.V. Jankiraman . The order proceeds on a premise,
expressly recorded in the order, that the DOPT OM dated 14
September 1992 also applies to LDCE.
22. The order dated 5 October 2020, reverting the petitioner from
SSA to JSA cannot, therefore, sustain in law. It is accordingly quashed
and set aside.
23. OA 1543/2020 filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal would
stand allowed in the aforesaid terms.
24. The petitioner shall be entitled, therefore, to be reinstated as
SSA forthwith.
25. During the currency of these proceedings, by order dated 2 June
2022, the petitioner was permitted to appear in the LDCE for the post
of ASO (Level-7) with a further direction that the result of the
examination be placed in a sealed cover. Needless to say, with the
order passed by us today, as the petitioner would stand reinstated as
SSA with effect from the date when he was reverted, the results of the
petitioner in the LDCE conducted for the post of ASO would also be
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:11.05.2026
16:56:53
W.P.(C) 8555/2021 Page 10 of 11

opened and acted upon in accordance with law. However, the
petitioner would not be entitled to any back wages for the period he
has served as JSA consequent to his reversion.
26. We clarify that this would not stand in the way of the
respondent proceeding qua the petitioner by any other means available
in law.
27. The writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.
MAY 5, 2026/ dsn
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:11.05.2026
16:56:53
W.P.(C) 8555/2021 Page 11 of 11