DEPUTY COMMANDANT MOHINDER LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has come to this Court impugning non-grant of promotion on the basis of the allegation that even though no charge sheet had been served upon him. the DPC has followed sealed cover procedure. It is stated that only a fact finding inquiry was in progress. Mr. Sharma has relied upon the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India etc. etc. Vs. K. V. Jankiraman etc. reported as AIR 91 SC 2010 wherein it has been laid down that where the initiation of disciplinary procecdings is only in contemplation and no charge sheet has been served. sealed cover procedure cannot be adopted and the petitioner should not be deprived of the promotion.

(2.) In the present case. admittedly till date no charge sheet has been served and it was therefore not correct to adopt the sealed cover procedure.

(3.) Mr. Shali has opposed the petition and has relied upon another decision of the Supreme Court Union of India and others Vs. K. Krishnan reported as 1992 Supp (3) S.C.C. 50 and states that according to the ratio of the said judgement if any promotion is allowed to the petitioner it would amount to placing premimum on the misconduct because the fact finding inquiry" did not absolve the petitioner and in fact the authorities concerned had even ordered recovery of certain amount from the petitioner. This case in our view cannot be of any help to the respondent. In this case. the disciplinary proceedings were already in progress and that is why the sealed cover procedure was adopted. In the present case. as already observed above, even the charge sheet has not so for been issued to the petitioner.