HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 6076 of 2025 Court No. - 8 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State counsel for opposite parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging charge sheet dated 30.10.2017. Further prayer has been made for issuance of a direction to opposite parties to consider candidature of petitioner for promotion on the post of Joint Commissioner w.e.f. 21.4.2025 when persons junior to petitioner have been promoted. Consequential benefit have also been sought. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that earlier while petitioner was holding the post of Deputy Commissioner, departmental proceedings were initiated against him by issuance of a charge sheet dated 30.10.2017 whereafter enquiry report was also submitted vide letter dated 3.4.2018 in which charge nos. 3, 4 and 7 were found established, charge no. 2 was found partly proved and the remaining charges were unproved. In pursuance thereof, a show cause notice dated 5.7.2018 was also issued to which petitioner submitted his reply on 27.8.2018 whereafter vide order dated 3.1.2019, State Government decided to keep departmental proceedings against petitioner in abeyance and to conduct a vigilance enquiry into the entire dispute pertaining to the alleged irregular registrations granted by petitioner to certain firms. 4. It has further been submitted that subsequently, the Vigilance (Establishment) forwarded enquiry report dated 24.2.2021 whereafter vide letter dated 19.7.2021, the Government decided to recommence the disciplinary proceedings against petitioner. It is submitted that despite Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajey Shanker Tewari, Ishaan Tewari Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Ajay Kumar Verma .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. State Tax Deptt. Lko. And Another .....Respondent(s) almost four years having passed, the aforesaid disciplinary proceedings have not seen any end and in the meantime, petitioner's case after consideration by Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion on the post of Joint Commissioner has been kept under sealed cover while promoting persons junior to him. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgement rendered by Supreme Court in the case of Premnath Bali Vs. Registrar, High Court of Delhi and another reported in 2015 16 SCC 415 to submit that enquiry proceedings which continue indefinitely without any valid reason is required to be quashed. He has also placed reliance upon judgement rendered by Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. K.V. Jankiraman and others reported in (1991) 4 SCC 109 as well as the Government order dated 28.5.1997. 6. Learned State counsel, on the basis of counter affidavit, has submitted that the facts, as indicated hereinabove, are disputed but submits that after submission of vigilance report dated 24.2.2021, new factors came to knowledge of State Government whereafter, while deciding to recommence the suspended disciplinary proceedings, Additional Commissioner, State Tax, Noida vide letter dated 2.6.2025 has forwarded a supplementary charge sheet to State Government vide letter dated 3.6.2025, whereafter, State Government vide letter dated 18.6.2025 has directed for examination of charge sheet and supplementary charge sheet and further proceedings shall be taken in terms of final decision to be taken by the State Government. It is also submitted that charges levelled against petitioner are serious in nature, due to which proceedings are required to reach a conclusion and in view of the aforesaid facts, it cannot be said that delay occasioned in conclusion of disciplinary proceedings is unexplained. 7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material available on record, the facts as indicated hereinabove are admitted between the parties. It is thus evident that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against petitioner way back in 2017 whereafter an enquiry report was also submitted on 3.4.2018 following which the disciplinary proceedings were stayed pending conduct of a vigilance enquiry, the report of which was also submitted on 24.2.2021. The State Government also vide letter dated 19.7.2021 re-initiated the suspended disciplinary proceedings. Counter affidavit, however, is completely silent as WRIA No. 6076 of 2025 2 to why it took the Government further two years while issuing letter dated 6.7.2023 for issuance of supplementary charge sheet. Counter affidavit is again silent as to why the concerned authority again took another two years to make available supplementary charge sheet vide letter dated 2.6.2025. It is also admitted in the counter affidavit that till date no final decision has been taken by opposite parties with regard to issuance of any supplementary charge sheet or even passing any final order with regard to charge sheet issued way back in 2017. 8. The aspect of prolonged disciplinary proceedings has been examined and enunciated upon by Supreme Court in the case of Premnath Bali (supra) in the following manner: "33) Keeping these factors in mind, we are of the considered opinion that every employer (whether State or private) must make sincere endeavor to conclude the departmental inquiry proceedings once initiated against the delinquent employee within a reasonable time by giving priority to such proceedings and as far as possible it should be concluded within six months as an outer limit. Where it is not possible for the employer to conclude due to certain unavoidable causes arising in the proceedings within the time frame then efforts should be made to conclude within reasonably extended period depending upon the cause and the nature of inquiry but not more than a year." 9. The aspect is also required to be considered in the light of admission made in paragraph 8 of counter affidavit to the effect that due to pending disciplinary proceedings, petitioner was not granted promotion on the post of Joint Commissioner while persons junior to him were granted such promotions. The aforesaid aspect has been considered by the Supreme Court in the case of K.V. Jankiraman (supra) in the following manner: "4. The Government of India (Deptt. of Personnel & Training) issued an Office Memorandum No, 22011/1/79. Estt. (A) dated January 30, 1982 on the subject of promotion of officers in whose cases "the sealed cover procedure" had been followed but against whom disciplinary/court proceedings were pending for a long time. The Memorandum stated that according to the existing instructions, cases of officers: (a) who are under suspension or (b) against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending or a decision has been taken by the competent disciplinary WRIA No. 6076 of 2025 3 authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings or, (c) against whom prosecution has been launched in a court of law or sanction for prosecution has been issued, are considered for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as the 'DPC') at the appropriate time but the findings of the Committee are kept in a sealed cover to be opened after the conclusion of the disciplinary/court proceedings. While the findings are kept in the sealed cover, the vacancy which might have gone to the officer concerned is filled only on an officiating basis. If on the conclusion of the departmental/court proceedings, the officer concerned is completely exonerated, and where he is under suspension it is also held that the suspension was.wholly unjustified, the sealed cover is opened and the recommendations of the DPC are acted upon. If the officer could have been promoted earlier, he is promoted to the post which is filled on an officiating basis, the officiating arrangement being terminated. On his promotion, the officer gets the benefit of seniority and fixation of pay on a notional basis with reference to the date on which he would have been promoted in the normal course, but for the pending disciplinary/ court proceedings. However, no arrears of salary are paid in respect of the period. prior to the date of actual promotion. The Memorandum goes on to state further that it was noticed that some- times the cases in the courts or the departmental proceedings take unduly long time to come to a conclusion and the officers undergo considerable hardship, even where it is not intended to deprive them of promotion for Such a long time. The Government, therefore, in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission examined how the hardship caused to the Government servant in such circumstances can be mitigated and has laid down the following procedure in such cases: "3. (i)(a) It may be ascertained whether there is any departmental disciplinary-proceedings or any case in a court of law pending against the individual under consideration, or (b) there is a prima-facie case on the basis of which a decision has been taken to proceed against the official either departmentally or in a court of law. ' (ii) The facts may be brought to the notice of the Departmental Promotion Committee who may then assess the suitability of the official(s) for promotion to the next grade/post and for the WRIA No. 6076 of 2025 4 purpose of this assessment, the D.P.C. shall not take into consideration the fact of the pending case(s) against the official. In case an official is found "unfit for promotion' on the basis of his record, without taking into consideration, the case(s) pending against him, the findings of the D.P.C. shall be recorded in the proceedings. In respect of any other kind of assessment, the grading awarded by the D.P.C. may be kept in a sealed cover. (iii) After the findings are kept in a sealed cover by the Departmental Promotion Committee subsequent D.P.Cs., if any, held after the first D.P.C. during the period the disciplinary/court proceedings may be pending, will also consider the officer's case and record their findings. which will again be kept in sealed cover in the above manner. In the normal course, on the conclusion of the disciplinary/court proceedings, the sealed cover or covers may be opened, and in case the officer is completely exonerated i.e. no statutory penalty, including that of censure, is imposed, the earliest possible date of his promotion but for the pendency of the disciplinary/court proceedings against him, may be determined with reference to the position(s) assigned to him in the findings in the sealed cover/covers and with reference to the date of promotion of his next junior on the basis of such position. The officer concerned may then be promoted, if necessary by reverting the junior most officiating person, and he may be given a notional promotion from the date he would have been promoted, as determined in the manner indicated above. But no arrears of pay shall be payable to him for the period .of notional promotion proceeding the date of actual promotion. If any penalty is imposed on the officer as a result of the disciplinary proceedings or if he is found guilty in the court proceedings against him, the findings in the sealed cover/covers shall not be acted upon. The officer's case for promotion may be considered in the usual manner by the next D.P.C. which meets in the normal course after the conclusion of the disciplinary/court proceedings. The existing instructions provide that in a case WRIA No. 6076 of 2025 5 where departmental disciplinary proceedings have been held under the relevant disciplinary rules, "warning" should not be issued as a result of such proceedings. If it is found as a result of the proceedings that some blame attaches to the officer, then the penalty of censure at least should be imposed. This may be kept in view so that no occasion arises for any doubt on the point whether or not an officer has been completely exonerated in disciplinary proceedings held against him." 10. It is in pursuance of directions issued by Supreme Court in the case of K.V. Jankiraman (supra) that the Government order dated 28.5.1997 has been issued and adverts to a situation as in the present case where departmental proceedings are prolonged and in the meantime recommendations regarding delinquent employee are kept under sealed cover. The Government order thereafter prescribed a procedure for adhoc promotion of such a delinquent employee pending finalizaton of departmental proceedings. 11. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances as discussed hereinabove, it is thus evident that disciplinary proceedings have been kept pending against petitioner for no fault on his own behalf. The State has also not been able to provide any reasonable explanation for keeping disciplinary proceedings pending for the past eight years. 12. In such circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, petitioner is entitled to be granted benefit of judgement rendered by Supreme Court in the case of K.V. Jankiraman (supra) as well as consequent Government order dated 28.5.1997. Appropriate directions in terms thereof shall be issued by opposite party no. 1-State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, State Tax Department, Civil Secretariat, Government of U.P., Lucknow within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order is served upon the concerned authority. 13. So far as the aspect of pending disciplinary proceedings is concerned, opposite party no. 1 is directed to ensure conclusion of aforesaid departmental proceedings expeditiously within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order is served upon the said authority. 14. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, looking to the unexplained prolonged pendency of departmental proceedings, it is directed that in case, the said departmental proceedings were not finalized within the aforesaid time period, the same initiated by charge sheet dated 30.10.2017 shall stand automatically quashed. WRIA No. 6076 of 2025 6 15. Resultantly, writ petition succeeds and partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Parties shall bear their own costs. (Manish Mathur,J.) September 10, 2025 AKK WRIA No. 6076 of 2025 7 Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench