Sealed cover procedure cannot be adopted unless the employee is under suspension or a charge-sheet is served.

The Petitioner, a 2010 batch IRS officer, was arrested on 17 October 2013 regarding alleged gold smuggling

He was suspended on 28 October 2013, but the suspension was revoked on 3 July 2015

On 30 January 2015, a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) considered him for promotion to Deputy Commissioner, but placed the recommendation in a "sealed cover"

At the time of the DPC meeting, no departmental charge-sheet had been issued, no criminal charge-sheet had been filed in court (it was filed later in 2016), and the Petitioner was not officially under suspension

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dismissed the Petitioner's challenge, holding that the prior suspension justified the sealed cover

Whether the "sealed cover procedure" can be adopted for an employee when, on the date of the DPC meeting, no departmental charge-sheet has been served, no criminal charge-sheet has been filed in court, and the employee is not under suspension

disciplinary or criminal proceedings are only considered "pending" for the purpose of the sealed cover procedure when a charge-memo/charge-sheet is actually issued or the officer is under suspension

vigilance clearance cannot be denied based on mere suspicion, preliminary investigation, or "doubtful integrity" unless one of the three specific conditions (suspension, departmental charge-sheet, or criminal prosecution) exists at the time of the DPC

The Court reasoned that the CAT erred in holding that a past suspension justifies a sealed cover even after reinstatement

Applying the Jankiraman doctrine, the Court emphasized that the "relevant date" is the date the DPC meets

On 30 January 2015 (the DPC date), the Petitioner was not under suspension (as it was revoked), no departmental charge-memo had been served, and no criminal charge-sheet had been filed before a Magistrate

The Court rejected the Respondents' reliance on State of M.P. v. Syed Naseem Zahir, noting that even that precedent confirms that proceedings are only initiated upon the service of a charge-sheet

Since none of the three mandatory conditions stipulated in the DOPT OMs were met on the DPC date, the adoption of the sealed cover procedure was legally untenable

The Court directed the Respondents to open the sealed cover; if the Petitioner is found fit, he must be granted promotion retrospectively from the date his batchmates were promoted to Deputy Commissioner, with all consequential legal benefits