Sealed cover procedure is impermissible until issuance of charge-memo or filing of criminal charge-sheet.

The petitioner, appointed as Assistant Manager (Civil) in 2002 and promoted to Manager Grade I in 2014, was subjected to a departmental inquiry in 2014 following a complaint

An inquiry report in 2018 exonerated him, but a second inquiry was instituted in 2019 under new 2018 Rules, which again resulted in a report finding charges "not proved"

On 24.12.2020, a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for the post of Senior Manager (Civil) placed the petitioner’s result in a "sealed cover" citing the pending inquiry, while promoting his junior

Subsequently, the State issued a disagreement note, awarded a 'censure' entry in 2022, which was later quashed by the State Public Service Tribunal and officially cancelled by the State on 11.04.2025

Meanwhile, a vigilance inquiry led to a prosecution sanction on 18.11.2022 and a criminal charge sheet on 10.10.2023

The petitioner’s representation for promotion was rejected on 12.06.2025 on the grounds of the pending criminal case

1. Whether the sealed cover procedure can be sustained based on criminal proceedings where the charge sheet was filed after the date of the DPC meeting.

2. Whether the pendency of a prosecution sanction or a preliminary investigation at the time of the DPC justifies the adoption of the sealed cover procedure.

The court applied the principles established in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman (1991), which held that departmental or criminal proceedings are only considered "pending" for the purpose of the sealed cover procedure once a charge-memo is served or a criminal charge sheet is filed in court

It further relied on Union of India v. Doly Loyi (2024), clarifying that the mere pendency of investigation or a request for prosecution sanction does not empower authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure.

These are mirrored in the U.P. Government Order dated 28.05.1997, which limits the sealed cover procedure to three specific exigencies: suspension, a pending disciplinary proceeding with a served charge sheet, or a criminal case where a charge sheet is filed in court

The court noted that although a proceeding was technically pending during the 2020 DPC, the subsequent cancellation of the 'censure' punishment in 2025 meant no departmental obstacles remained

Regarding the criminal proceedings, the court found that on the date the DPC was convened (24.12.2020), no criminal charge sheet had been filed in court; it was only submitted on 10.10.2023

Applying Jankiraman, the court held that the "pendency" must exist at the time of the DPC to justify the sealed cover

Furthermore, following Doly Loyi, the court determined that the fact that prosecution sanction was "pending" or later granted (in 2022) was irrelevant to the 2020 DPC's considerations

Consequently, the State's reliance on post-dated criminal developments to deny the petitioner's promotion was legally flawed

It held that criminal proceedings cannot be deemed "pending" to justify a sealed cover procedure until a charge sheet is filed in the competent court.

The Court directed the competent authority to take a fresh decision regarding the petitioner’s promotion to Senior Manager (Civil), effective from the date his junior was promoted, within eight weeks