Sealed cover procedure cannot be resorted to before filing of chargesheet or issuance of departmental memo.

The petitioner, an Assistant Executive Engineer in the PWD (Roads), Assam, was implicated in a vigilance case (Vigilance P.S. Case No. 01/2024) regarding alleged irregularities in issuing work completion certificates

While prosecution sanction was granted by the competent authority, the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), during its meeting on 06.03.2025, placed the petitioner’s recommendation in a "sealed cover" despite no criminal charge sheet or disciplinary charge memo having been filed at that specific time

The petitioner’s batchmates were subsequently promoted on 24.06.2025

The petitioner challenged the adoption of the sealed cover procedure as being premature and contrary to established law

1. Whether the authorities can resort to the "sealed cover procedure" solely on the ground of grant of prosecution sanction, prior to the actual filing of a charge sheet in a criminal court

2. Whether Clause 6 of the Office Memorandum dated 09.05.2006 permits the withholding of promotion when the conditions for a sealed cover arise only after the DPC's recommendation

The Court primarily applied the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman (1991), which established that the sealed cover procedure can only be invoked after a charge sheet is filed in a criminal case or a charge memo is issued in disciplinary proceedings

This was reaffirmed in Union of India v. Doly Loyi (2024)

Furthermore, the court examined the State of Assam's Office Memorandum (OM) dated 09.05.2006, specifically Clause 2 (defining categories for sealed cover) and Clause 6 (deeming a recommendation as "sealed cover" if prosecution/charges arise after the DPC meeting but before promotion)

The Court reasoned that the law is well-settled: the stage for resorting to the sealed cover procedure arises only upon the filing of a charge sheet or issuance of a charge memo

In this instance, on the date of the DPC meeting (06.03.2025), no charge sheet had been filed; only a prosecution sanction existed, which does not meet the legal threshold for "pending prosecution"

The court noted that while Clause 6 of the OM dated 09.05.2006 creates a "deeming fiction" to withhold promotion if charges are filed after the DPC meeting, this clause cannot be invoked if the DPC prematurely applied the sealed cover procedure at the outset based on a wrong interpretation of the law

Since the petitioner was denied equal consideration with his batchmates on a date before the charge sheet was filed, his accrued right to promotion was wrongly curtailed

The writ petition was allowed, and the Court directed the respondent authorities to open the sealed cover

If the petitioner is found recommended by the DPC, the Appointing Authority must issue a promotion order to the post of Executive Engineer effective from 24.06.2025 (the date his batchmates were promoted), subject to seniority rules

This exercise must be completed within 30 days