Prolonged sealed-cover proceedings require ad hoc promotion from juniors’ promotion date, excluding arrears until final outcome.

The petitioner, a Deputy Collector appointed pursuant to the 3rd Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Examination, was posted as Circle Officer, Nagri, in 2011.

A departmental proceeding was initiated against him in 2018 pursuant to a CBI recommendation, alleging that he had permitted mutation of land in excess of the area covered by a power of attorney.

The Presenting Officer reported that the Circle Officer had no role in determining whether the power-of-attorney holder had sold excess land, and the petitioner asserted that the Inquiry Officer had also exonerated him; however, no final order had been passed in the proceeding.

Three criminal cases were also pending against the petitioner, although charge-sheets had been filed between 2013 and 2014.

Meanwhile, his batch-mates, including juniors, were promoted to Junior Selection Grade, equivalent to Under Secretary, with effect from 08.06.2022, and to Additional Collector, equivalent to Deputy Secretary, with effect from 04.10.2024.

The petitioner’s case was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee but was kept in a sealed cover because of the pending departmental and criminal proceedings.

The State additionally contended that the petitioner had not submitted the requisite movable and immovable property returns, rendering him ineligible for promotion.

The petitioner produced online records showing submission of such returns for the relevant years, which the State did not dispute.

The Court applied the sealed-cover principles recognised by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, (1991) 4 SCC 109, as adopted by the State of Jharkhand through Resolution No. 6227 dated 20.11.2008.

Under the Resolution, although the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee may initially be kept in sealed cover during pending departmental or criminal proceedings, an employee is to be considered for ad hoc promotion if the proceedings are not concluded within two years, subject to examination of whether promotion would be against public interest, whether the allegations are sufficiently grave, whether the proceedings are likely to conclude shortly, and whether promotion could prejudice or obstruct the proceedings.

The Court also relied on the constitutional requirements of fairness and equality under Articles 14 and 16, and on the principle that governmental authorities must act as model employers.

It further referred to Union of India v. Tantia Constructions Pvt. Ltd., (2011) 5 SCC 697, for the proposition that manifest injustice must be remedied.

The Court found that the petitioner’s promotion case had admittedly been placed in sealed cover and that the departmental proceeding had remained pending for over eight years, despite the Presenting Officer’s reports substantially discrediting the charges and despite the alleged exoneration by the Inquiry Officer not being denied by the State.

The State did not assert that any of the four factors specified in the 2008 Resolution had been considered or that ad hoc promotion would prejudice the pending proceedings.

The Court therefore held that continued withholding of promotion merely because proceedings were pending was inconsistent with the applicable Resolution and the principles in K.V. Jankiraman.

The objection concerning property returns was also rejected because the petitioner had produced online proof of filing returns for the relevant financial years, and that material was undisputed.

In view of the petitioner’s prolonged stagnation and the promotion of his batch-mates and juniors, the Court considered it appropriate to grant retrospective ad hoc promotion, while leaving the question of arrears dependent on the eventual outcome of the proceedings and the State’s decision.

The State was directed to grant the petitioner ad hoc promotion to Junior Selection Grade, equivalent to Under Secretary, with effect from 08.06.2022, and ad hoc promotion to Additional Collector, equivalent to Deputy Secretary, with effect from 04.10.2024, being the dates on which his batch-mates and juniors were promoted.

The petitioner was also granted consequential benefits relating to seniority and revision of pay-scale, but not immediate payment of differential or arrear salary.

The State was directed to decide the petitioner’s entitlement to arrears after conclusion of the departmental and criminal proceedings.

The exercise was ordered to be completed within eight weeks.