Following acquittal, authorities must decide on opening the sealed cover and act on DPC recommendations according to law.

The applicant, Jitender Kumar Pandiya, working as an LDC/Junior Assistant in the Directorate of Education, GNCT of Delhi, challenged the respondents’ decision concerning his non-clearance from the vigilance angle and the consequent placement of the Departmental Promotion Committee’s recommendations in sealed cover for promotion to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer on a regular basis.

The DPC, in its meeting dated 23 December 2024, recommended that its findings be kept in sealed cover under the applicable Department of Personnel and Training Office Memoranda because the applicant was not clear from the vigilance angle.

The vigilance objection arose from FIR No. 264 of 2009, in which a charge-sheet had been filed and the applicant had faced trial.

The applicant was subsequently acquitted by judgment dated 19 August 2025 and thereafter sought opening of the sealed cover and consequential action on the DPC recommendations.

During the proceedings, the applicant placed on record a letter dated 22 July 2026 from the Comptroller of Accounts, Finance Department, recording the fact of his acquittal, of which the respondents were aware.

Whether, following the applicant’s acquittal in the criminal case, the respondents were required to take a final decision regarding opening of the sealed cover containing the DPC recommendations.

Whether the Original Application could be disposed of by directing the respondents to act upon the DPC recommendations in accordance with law within a specified period.

The Tribunal applied the sealed-cover procedure prescribed under DoPT Office Memorandum No. 22011/4/91-Estt.(A) dated 14 September 1992 and Office Memorandum No. 22034/4/2012-Estt.(D) dated 2 November 2012, under which DPC recommendations may be kept in sealed cover where disciplinary proceedings or criminal prosecution are pending and the government servant is not clear from the vigilance angle.

The Tribunal further proceeded on the principle that, once the criminal prosecution relied upon for withholding vigilance clearance has concluded in the employee’s acquittal, the competent authority must consider, in accordance with law, whether the sealed cover should be opened and the DPC recommendations given effect to.

The sealed-cover procedure had originally been invoked because the applicant was facing criminal prosecution arising from FIR No. 264 of 2009 and consequently lacked vigilance clearance.

However, the factual basis for continuing that impediment had materially changed because the applicant had been acquitted on 19 August 2025.

The respondents were aware of the acquittal, as reflected in the communication dated 22 July 2026 placed on record.

In these circumstances, the Tribunal considered it appropriate not to adjudicate the applicant’s entitlement to promotion directly, but to require the respondents to make a final decision on opening the sealed cover and to act on the DPC’s recommendations in accordance with the applicable rules and legal principles.

Since the respondents did not dispute the applicant’s acquittal, the Tribunal found no purpose in keeping the matter pending.

The Original Application and all pending Miscellaneous Applications were disposed of, with no order as to costs.