( 2025:HHC:24574 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 7732/2025 Decided on: 28.07.2025 Kamal Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Prem P. Chauhan, Advocate, through video conferencing. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Heard. 2. Respondents convened meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for making promotions to the post of Social Education & Block Planning Officer. Petitioner’s name was in the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Social Education and Block Planning Officer (SEBPO). The DPC kept its recommendations qua petitioner’s promotion in a sealed cover. The other eligible incumbents, recommended for promotion by the DPC, were promoted under office order issued on 23.04.2025. Feeling 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:24574 ) aggrieved against keeping his case for promotion in sealed cover, the petitioner has instituted this writ petition seeking following substantive prayers: - “(a) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the action of the respondents in keeping the proceedings of the DPC concerning the petitioner in a sealed cover, as reflected in the promotion order dated 23.04.2025 (Annexure P-2). b) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to open the sealed cover pertaining to the petitioner's promotion to the post of Social Education and Block Planning Officer (SEBPO) forthwith and, if found fit for promotion by the DPC, promote the petitioner from the date his juniors were promoted i.e., 23.04.2025, with all consequential benefits including seniority, pay fixation, and arrears.” 3. Respondents’ stand is that: - FIR No.2/2025 dated 18.03.2025 was registered against the petitioner under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for his allegedly demanding illegal gratification. Pursuant to the said FIR, the petitioner was placed under suspension under order dated 28.03.2025. In view of petitioner having been suspended, following Clause 16.32(i)(a) of Chapter 16 of H.P. Handbook on Personnel Matters Vol-I gets attracted, in terms of which, sealed cover procedure is required to be applied in cases of Government servants under suspension: - “(2) Procedure applicable from 3-12-1992 and in vogue now The procedure and guidelines to be followed in the matter of promotion of Govt. servants against whom disciplinary proceedings/court 3 ( 2025:HHC:24574 ) proceedings are pending or whose conduct is under investigation have been reviewed carefully by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, PG and pensions, Deptt. Of Personnel and Training. The Govt. of India also took note of the judgment dated 27-8-1991 of the Supreme Court in union of India Vs. K.V. Jankiraman etc. (A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 2010). As a result of the review and in supersession of all earlier instructions, the Govt. of India issued revised instructions in this behalf on 14-9- 1992, which have been adopted in H.P. for application to employees/officers of H.P. on 3- 12-1992. These instructions are as under:- (i) Cases of Government servants to whom Sealed Cover Procedure will be applicable. At the time of consideration of the cases of Government servants for promotion, details of Government servants in the consideration zone for promotion falling under the following categories for whom sealed cover procedure is to be adopted should be specifically brought to the notice of the Departmental Promotion Committee:- (a) Government servants under suspension (b) Government servants in respect of whom a charge sheet has been issued and disciplinary proceedings are pending; and (c) Government servants in respect of whom prosecution for a criminal charge is pending. xxx xxx xxx” 4. In view of para-16.32 extracted above, the DPC has kept its recommendation regarding petitioner’s further promotion in sealed cover as petitioner had been placed under suspension. Petitioner’s suspension is not in dispute. It would also be in place to refer Union of India & Anr. Vs. K.V. Jankiraman2, which inter-alia 2 1991 (4) SCC 10 4 ( 2025:HHC:24574 ) held that suspension by itself permits resort to the sealed cover procedure. Relevant portion from the judgment reads as under: - “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/chargesheet 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.” 5 ( 2025:HHC:24574 ) 5. The suspension of the petitioner is not under challenge in this writ petition. In view of petitioner’s suspension, the DPC has justly kept its recommendation qua petitioner’s promotion in a sealed cover. Accordingly, the present petition fails and is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 28th July, 2025(rohit)