DIWAKAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner was considered for promotion on the post of Inspector and the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee was kept in a sealed cover by an order dated 27.10.2005 on the ground that case crime No. 203 of 1998 and case crime No. 444 of 2000 were pending before the Court concerned. In so far as case crime No. 203 of 1998 is concerned, the petitioner has been acquitted by a judgment dated 12.3.2012. In so far as case crime No. 444 of 2000 is concerned, further proceedings has been stayed by an interim order passed by the Court, dated 25.8.2003, which is still continuing. However, on the same charges, a domestic inquiry was also initiated against the petitioner, in which an inquiry report dated 17.4.2009 has already been filed inspite of which the employers have not taken any decision on it. It has further been brought on record that the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 7421 of 2001, which was disposed of by an order dated 9.2.2011, directing the employers to take a final decision in the matter within three months. Inspite of the service of the order no action has been taken by the employer till date.

(2.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the opinion, that mere pendency of a criminal case cannot debar the petitioner from not being considered for a promotional post. There is no Rule or Regulation commanding the employers to keep the recommendation of the departmental proceedings in abeyance, till the conclusion of the criminal case. The Court is of the opinion, that action pursuant to the departmental proceedings should be taken and, in the event criminal proceedings goes against the petitioner, action on it, can be taken at that stage. But, in anticipation of the result of the criminal proceedings, the decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee cannot be kept in abeyance nor can it be kept in a sealed cover.

(3.) The concept of a sealed cover is not for the purpose of keeping the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee in abeyance. The concept of a sealed cover has been explained by this Court in Km. Maya Mahilla Constable v. State of U.P. and others, 2011 5 ADJ 818. The Court held: