Criminal prosecution unrelated to official duties cannot justify withholding promotion under the sealed cover procedure.

The applicant, a Lecturer at the National Institute of Homoeopathy (NIH), Kolkata, was subject to an FIR lodged by a third party in 2016 under Sections 341, 324, 506, and 34 of the IPC regarding a dispute unrelated to his official duties

A Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) convened on July 19, 2018, to consider his promotion to Assistant Professor under the Dynamic Assured Career Progression (DACP) scheme but placed its recommendations in a "sealed cover" due to the pending criminal case

The applicant sought ad-hoc promotion citing DoPT Office Memorandum (OM) dated September 14, 1992, which allows for the review of cases where proceedings exceed two years

The Ministry of AYUSH rejected his claim via orders dated July 19, 2021, and August 31, 2021, asserting that the charges were grave and he lacked vigilance clearance

1. Whether the pendency of a criminal case unrelated to official duties justifies the indefinite use of the "sealed cover" procedure for promotion

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to ad-hoc promotion or regular promotion considerations under the DoPT OM dated September 14, 1992, given the prolonged pendency of the criminal proceedings

DoPT Office Memorandum No. 22011/4/91-Estt (A) dated 14.09.1992, which mandates a six-monthly review of "sealed cover" cases and allows for ad-hoc promotion if a case is not concluded within two years, provided it is not against public interest

Principle established by the Delhi High Court in WP(C) No. 6391/2016, which held that the sealed cover procedure under the 1992 OM should ideally apply to criminal cases involving official misconduct or violation of service rules, rather than personal or matrimonial disputes

Rule 9(6)(b)(i) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 regarding the definition of pending judicial proceedings

The Tribunal observed that the criminal case against the applicant arose from a third-party complaint and had no nexus with his professional conduct or official duties

It noted that the Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO) of NIH had issued a certificate stating the applicant's integrity was "beyond doubt" and no penalties had been imposed in the last ten years, which the Tribunal treated as sufficient vigilance clearance for promotion purposes

The court reasoned that since more than two years had passed since the original DPC meeting in 2018, and the criminal charges did not involve departmental misconduct, the continued denial of promotion was legally unsustainable

The Tribunal adopted the rationale of the Principal Bench in OA 1210/2024, emphasizing that personal disputes should not block an employee’s career progression when the charges are not grave enough to warrant suspension or relate to service

The respondents were directed to open the sealed cover containing the 2018 DPC recommendations

If found eligible, the applicant must be granted notional promotion from the date he originally became eligible under the DACP scheme, with all consequential benefits, to be implemented within 90 days

No arrears of pay would be granted for the period the applicant did not actually perform the duties of the higher post