RAM LAL BAIRWA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has been challenging the resort to sealed cover procedure inasmuch as according to the petitioner since there was no initiation of departmental proceedings on the date of Departmental Promotion Committee (for the short D.P.C.) meeting, the sealed cover could not have been placed before the said Committee.

(2.) The petitioner joined the Border Security Force in 1988; that he was posted as Sub Inspector in 100 Battalion then deployed on the Cooch Bihar border of West Bengal; that on 26.9.90, petitioner was travelling by train on duty from New Cooch Bihar to Gwalior; that he was carrying in his brief case, a compass, property of the Government; that the brief-case of the petitioner was stolen from his compartment; that the report to the local police did not yield any result; that the said compass could not be recovered; that after two years of the incident, some time in 1992, Court of Inquiry/Fact Finding Probe was ordered by the Commandant and that in 1994, cost of the compass was recovered from the petitioner, under orders of the Commandant the matter was closed and no charge-sheet was preferred against the petitioner on this score.

(3.) That in June, 1995, D.P.C. was held to select Sub- Inspectors, including the petitioner for promotion as Inspectors; that according to the information available to the petitioner, the case of the petitioner was placed before the D.P.C. in "Sealed Cover" against law; that "Sealed Cover" procedure can be resorted to only in the case of a person against whom formal disciplinary proceedings have been initiated i.e. charge-sheet has been served upon him; that no charge-sheet whatsoever had been preferred against the petitioner at the time D.P.C. met; that it was only in 18.9.1995, a charge-sheet was served upon him under Section 40 B.S.F. Act for loss of compass alleging negligence against the petitioner.