Hi,

You are suggested to keep calm and file a case when you are not getting promotion in time. Till then, have vigilant eye on all the things.

The 'sealed cover procedure' is adopted when an employee is due to be considered for promotion, increment etc. but departmental disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending against him

2)Going by the DOP&T instructions of 14.09.1992, mere pendency of an FIR could not be a hurdle for promotion of an employee. In such a situation, the instructions as contained in the OM dated 14.09.1992 are that the DPC should assess the suitability of the Government servants along with other eligible candidates without taking into consideration the disciplinary case/ criminal prosecution. The assessment of the DPC including unfit for promotion and the grading awarded by it would be kept in the sealed cover.

In a criminal case, it is settled law that for applying the above clause it is not necessary that the charges should be framed in the court of law against the Government employee for prosecution for criminal charge to be treated as pending. In WP (C) 7960/2012 Union of India vs. Doly Loyi the Honble Delhi High Court deliberated on this question and came to the following conclusion:

9. We are also faced with the same question in this case. It is not in dispute that the petitioners herein had kept the DPC proceedings with respect to the respondent in a sealed cover as the same falls within the scope of para 2(iii) of DOP&T dated 14.09.1992. This O.M dated 14.09.1992 was issued by the DOP& T pursuant to the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as AIR 1991 SC 1210 Union of India vs. K.V Jankiraman. It may be necessary to state here that the O.M dated 12.01.1998 stipulated that the sealed cover procedure could be adopted, with regard to a government servant in respect of whom prosecution for a criminal charge was pending, or sanction for prosecution has been issued, or a decision has been taken to accord sanction for prosecution. The O.M dated 14.09.1992 which superseded the O.M dated 12.01.1998 did not contain any stipulation where the sealed cover procedure could be adopted, when sanction for prosecution has been issued, or decision has been taken to accord sanction for prosecution. Clause 2 (iii) of O.M dated 14.09.1992 stipulated that sealed cover procedure can be adopted only if the prosecution for criminal charge is pending against government servant. The said Clause came up for interpretation before this court in W.P(C) no. 3793/2011 and W.P(C) 1470/2011 decided on 02.12.2011, wherein this court has held as under:

10. We have to interpret the expression "prosecution for a criminal charge is pending". The emphasis is on the word "prosecution" meaning thereby that the prosecution should be pending and it should be in respect of a criminal charge. To attract this Clause, a criminal charge is necessary framed by the concerned Court. The question is when the prosecution would be said to be pending. No doubt, by mere sanctioning of the prosecution, it would not be pending, at the same time once, the FIR is lodged and the matter is under investigation, the prosecution would be treated as pending. This is so held by the Supreme Court in State, CBI vs. Sashi Balasubramanian and another, (2006) 13 SCC 2520 in the following words:-

29. It is in the aforementioned context, interpretation of the word prosecution assumes significance. The term prosecution would include institution or commencement of a criminal proceeding. It may include also an inquiry or investigation. The terms prosecution and cognizance are not interchangeable. They carry different meanings. Different statutes provide for grant of sanction at different stages.

30. "In initio" means in the beginning. The dictionary meaning of "initiation" is cause to begin. Whereas some statutes provide for grant of sanction before a prosecution is initiated, some others postulate grant of sanction before cognizance is taken by Court. However, meaning of the word may vary from case to case. In its wider sense, the prosecution means a proceeding by way of indictment or information, and is not necessarily confined to prosecution for an offence.

Honble Supreme Court in K.V. Jankiraman (supra) and Honble High Court in Union of India vs. Om Prakash, WP (C) no.7810/2008 have held that pendency of FIR is not a bar on promotion.

1. You are eligible for promotion even after completion of disciplinary proceedings and before punishment is awarded.

2. If your name has featured in the FIR, then your name will be kept in sealed cover to be opened after the disciplinary proceeding is over. If you are found guilty, it will not be given to you.

3. The law is that no body is considered as guilty till he is proved to be guilty by the competent authority after he is allowed to face trial and contest the charge leveled against him. So, till the outcome of the result of the proceeding, result of your interview for promotion shall be kept in a sealed cover.

1. You are eligible for promotion by the due year, however if there is an adverse report especially with regard to the CBI case, then the department may keep your promotion on hold.

2.Yes, it may be kept in the sealed cover.

3. There is no necessity for any case law for this, the logic is that there is a pending criminal case agaisnt you hence they have kept them in a sealed cover.

If you feel that this will happen then you may approach the CBI police to expedite the cae by either filing a charge sheet or to dispose the FIR if no materials have been found against you on the complaint filed in this regard.

Dear Client,

Promotion is a fundamental right of employee. Mere pendency of criminal investigation no bar to promotion.

https://www.telegraphindia.com/1170517/jsp/odisha/story_151920.jsp

1995(2) ATT (SC) 5 STATE OF PUNJAB& OTHERS -VERSUS- CHANAN LAL GOYAL

1.Am I eligible for promotion in above Scenario. -- Yes

2. Weather my result will go in sealed cover. -- This is usual practice but hence, no disciplinary action initiated neither trail or sanction requested, No such procedure will be applicable.

3. Since only FIR is there no Chargsheet/ prosecution sanction is there, is there any case law or DOPT circular that my reasuly should be declared and not go in sealed cover. --- Mere pendency of investigation no means to hold promotion.

SC - in K.V. Jankiraman 1991 AIR 2010 - Sealed cover procedure is to be adopted only if charge sheet is issued and not is cases where preliminary investigation / inquiry is under way.

.

Yes you will be eligible for promotion the criteria and process of sealed cover proceeding shall be used in you case.

2. Yes

3.nion of India and Others vs. K.V.Jankiraman and Others, (1991) 4 SCC 109. The common questions involved in all those matters were: (1) What is the date from which it can be said that disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending against an employee? (2) What is the course to be adopted when the employee is held guilty in such proceedings if the guilt merits punishment other than that of dismissal? and (3) To what benefits an employee who is completely or partially exonerated is entitled to and from which date?. Among the three questions, we are concerned about question No.1. As per the rules applicable, the “sealed cover procedure” is adopted when an employee is due for promotion, increment etc. but disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending against him at the relevant time and hence, the findings of his entitlement to the benefit are kept in a sealed cover to be opened after the proceedings in question are over. Inasmuch as we are concerned about the first question, the dictum laid down by this Court relating to the said issue is as follows:-

“16. On the first question, viz., as to when for the purposes of the sealed cover procedure the disciplinary/criminal proceedings can be said to have commenced, the Full Bench of the Tribunal has held that it is only when a charge-memo in a disciplinary proceedings or a charge-sheet in a criminal prosecution is issued to the employee that it can be said that the departmental proceedings/criminal prosecution is initiated against the employee. The sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after the charge-memo/charge-sheet is issued. The pendency of preliminary investigation prior to that stage will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure. We are in agreement with the Tribunal on this point. The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant- authorities that when there are serious allegations and it takes time to collect necessary evidence to prepare and issue charge-memo/charge- sheet, it would not be in the interest of the purity of administration to reward the employee with a promotion, increment etc. does not impress us. The acceptance of this contention would result in injustice to the employees in many cases. As has been the experience so far, the preliminary investigations take an inordinately long time and particularly when they are initiated at the instance of the interested persons, they are kept pending deliberately. Many times they never result in the issue of any charge-memo/charge-sheet. If the allegations are serious and the authorities are keen in investigating them, ordinarily it should not take much time to collect the relevant evidence and finalise the charges. What is further, if the charges are that serious, the authorities have the power to suspend the employee under the relevant rules, and the suspension by itself permits a resort to the sealed cover procedure. The authorities thus are not without a remedy.