2025:HHC:23341 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 6645 of 2025 Date of Decision: July 18, 2025 ______________________________________________________________ Jia Lal ... Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner Mr. M.A. Safee, Advocate. For the respondents Mr. Anoop Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General & Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent Nos. 1 to 4/State. Mr. Tanuj Thakur, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 5 to 7. ____________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J (Oral) The petitioner was appointed as Patwari on contract basis on 8.10.2015. Services of petitioner were regularized on 12.4.2019. Vide communication issued in November, 2024 (Annexure P-2), petitioner was called upon to explain his position that why wrong distance certificate was issued by him. It is alleged that the petitioner issued a distance certificate during registration of some sale deeds, thereby showing distance to be 180- 500 metres, whereas, it was within 100 metres, and it was alleged that due to this market value of property was assessed on lower side, resulting in loss of Lakhs of Rupees in the shape of stamp duty and registration fee. The petitioner has duly replied to the Show Cause Notice. 2025:HHC:23341 - 2 - 2. In the meanwhile, a Departmental Promotion Committee was held on 11.4.2025, for promotion of eligible Patwaris to the post of Kanungos, wherein, petitioner was considered for promotion inter alia others. However, when office order dated 11.4.2025 (Annexure P-6) was issued, except petitioner, all other eligible Patwaris were promoted to the post of Kanungo, and petitioner’s promotion was kept in sealed cover, on account of aforesaid Show Cause Notice issued to him. Respondents Nos. 5 to 7, are the persons, juniors of the petitioner, who stand promoted to next higher post of Kanungo. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred present writ petition, seeking following reliefs: “A. That a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction may kindly be issued quashing the impugned action/order of the respondents, whereby the petitioner has been denied the promotion to the post of Kanungo being patently illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional besides the same being in violation to the settled principles of Sessions Judge. B. That a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued directing the respondents to promote the Petitioner to the post of Kanungo w.e.f. 11.04.2025, the date from which his counterparts and juniors have been ordered to be promoted with all consequential benefits, if the petitioner has already been considered by the DPC convened on 11.04.2025, in as much as on the date of DPC neither any Departmental Enquiry was pending nor initiated against the petitioner, neither any Charge-Sheet/Charge-Memo was served upon the Petitioner OR If the sealed cover procedure has been adopted, the respondents may kindly be directed to open the said sealed cover and promote the petitioner to the post of Kanungo w.e.f. 11.04.2025 in view of the settled law of the land. C. That in alternate, if the Petitioner has not been considered for promotion by the DPC conveyed on 11.04.2025, the respondents be directed 2025:HHC:23341 - 3 - to convene Review DPC for the post of Kanungo and they be directed to consider the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Kanungo and subsequently, promote the petitioner to the post of Kanungo from the date his counterparts and juniors have been ordered to be promoted with all consequential benefits i.e. w.e.f. 11.04.2025 (Annexure P-6)” 4. Petitioner claims that the post of Kanungo is a Non-Selection post, to be filled up strictly as per seniority. It is pleaded by learned counsel for the petitioner that otherwise, no charge sheet/memo was issued to the petitioner on the date of holding DPC on 11.4.2025, as such, sealed cover procedure, if adopted by the respondents, is not admissible. Reliance has been placed on Coal India Ltd. v. Ananta Saha (2011) 5 SCC 142 to stress that disciplinary proceedings shall be deemed to have been initiated when charge sheet is issued to the delinquent employee. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner upon Union of India and others v. Anil Kumar Sarkar (2013) 4 SCC 161. While relying upon much celebrated verdict rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India v. K.V. Janakiraman, AIR 1991 SC 2010, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that it is only when a charge-memo in departmental proceedings is issued, it can be said that departmental proceedings/criminal prosecution has been initiated and sealed cover procedure can be adopted only in case charge memo/sheet stands issued on the date of convening DPC. 5. If the reply filed by the respondents to the petition is seen, respondents claim that the petitioner has contravened Notification No. REV-Stamp(F)6- 1/2009-III-Loose, dated 29.11.2021 issued by Government of Himachal 2025:HHC:23341 - 4 - Pradesh, Department of Revenue (Stamp-Registration), Village Revenue Officer /Patwari is required to issue distance certificate by scaling the distance of property from the road on revenue map (Momi/Latha) and describe relevant class of road and where road is not reflected on the existing revenue map, he shall visit the spot for the purpose. It is admitted by the respondents that case of petitioner for promotion was kept in abeyance/sealed cover on account of contemplated charge sheet/memo /disciplinary proceedings, which are, admittedly yet to commence. 6. Without adverting to the contents of Show Cause Notice, reply thereof and gravity of misconduct committed by the petitioner, this court would like to delve into the question, whether, the respondents are justified in keeping the promotion of the petitioner in sealed cover/in abeyance, in view of Show Cause Notice issued in November, 2024. 7. The procedure to be adopted in case of promotion of an employee, who is facing departmental proceedings has been defined by Their Lordships of Hon'ble Apex Court in Janakiraman (supra). Relevant paras of aforesaid judgment can be profitably reproduced herein below: “6. 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 com- menced, the Full Bench of the Tribunal has held that it is only when a charge- memo in a disciplinary proceedings or a chargesheet in a criminal prosecution is issued to the employee that it can be said that the departmental proceed- ings/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 2025:HHC:23341 - 5 - 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 initi- ated at the instance of the interested persons, they are kept pending deliberately. Many times they never result in the issue of any charge-memo/chargesheet. If the allegations are serious and the authorities are keen in investigating them, ordi- narily it slould 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. It was then contended on behalf of the authorities that conclusions nos. 1 and 4 of the Full Bench of the Tribunal are inconsistent with each other. Those conclusions are as follows: "(1) consideration for promotion, selection grade, crossing the efficiency bar or higher scale of pay cannot be withheld merely on the ground of pendency of a disciplinary or crimi-nal proceedings against an official; ( ) ................................................ (4) the sealed cover procedure can be resorted only after a charge memo is served on the concerned official or the charge sheet filed before the criminal court and not before . ' ' There' is no doubt that there is a seeming contradiction between the two conclusions. But read harmoniously, and that is what the Full Bench has intended, the two conclusions can be reconciled with each other. The conclusion no. 1 should be read to mean that the promotion etc. cannot be withheld merely because some disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending against the employee. To deny the said benefit, they must be at the relevant time pending at the stage when charge-memo/charge-sheet has already been issued to the employee. Thus read, there is no inconsistency in the two conclusions.” 8. Legal position on the issue, which is before this court in this case is crystal clear i.e. sealed cover procedure can be adopted only when a charge- 2025:HHC:23341 - 6 - memo in a disciplinary proceedings or a chargesheet in a criminal prosecution is issued to the employee prior to convening of the Departmental Promotion Committee. The pendency of preliminary investigation prior to that stage will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure. 9. Since, it is admitted case of parties, that only Show Cause Notice has been issued to the petitioner and on 11.4.2025, when Departmental Promotion Committee was held, no disciplinary proceedings, were pending, the action of the respondents is in the teeth of law laid down in K.V. Janakiraman (supra) and the principles of service jurisprudence stand violated. Otherwise also, reply to the Show Cause Notice stands submitted by the petitioner vide Annexure P-3, and since the reply is undated and respondents have not specifically disputed the said factum, it can be safely presumed that reply was submitted shortly after issuance of Show Cause Notice, therefore, it was for the respondents to have initiated departmental proceedings, by issuing charge sheet, if they were not satisfied with the explanation rendered by the petitioner for issuing alleged wrong distance certificate. 10. In view of the admitted facts and settled legal position, this court is compelled to accept the petition and grant the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner. It would apt to take note here that respondents Nos.5 to 7 stand served but no reply was filed on their behalf, despite the fact that four weeks’ time was granted to file reply, on 27.5.2025, which has since expired. 2025:HHC:23341 - 7 - 11. In view of above, the petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to promote the petitioner as Kanungo from the date respondents Nos. 5 to 7 stand promoted pursuant to Departmental Promotion Committee held on 11.4.2025, subject to his fulfilling other eligibility conditions. Petitioner shall be entitled to all ancillary benefits, including seniority in the post of Kanungo and incidental financial benefits. however, respondents are at liberty to proceed with the departmental proceedings. The petition stands disposed of in the afore terms. All pending applications stand disposed of. Interim directions, if any, stand vacated. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 18, 2025 (Shankar)