HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 10761 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Yadav 'Warsi' learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Viswash and Ms. Rati Yadav Advocates whose power filed today is taken on record and learned State Counsel for opposite parties. 2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 26th May 2025 whereby petitioner’s representation for promotion on the post of Assistant Consolidation Officer has been rejected. 3. The only issue requiring consideration in this petition is the date on which enquiry proceedings can be said to have been initiated against petitioner since admittedly, even as per the counter affidavit, the Departmental Promotion Committee was held on 16th December 2024 but a charge sheet was served upon petitioner only on 5th February 2025 while order dated 31st August 2024 had been passed for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against petitioner in terms of Rule 7 of the UP Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the mere issuance of the order dated 31st August 2024 would be irrelevant in view of Government order dated 28th May 1997 as well as judgment rendered by Supreme Court in the case of Chairman cum Managing Director, Coal India Limited vs. Ananta Saha, 2011 5 SCC 142 whereby it has been clearly stipulated that it is only by issuance of charge sheet that an inquiry can be said to have been initiated. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Santosh Kr. Yadav Warsi, Deepesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Nandlal .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Revenue Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) 5. Learned State Counsel has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner on the basis of counter affidavit filed and submits that it was on account of initiation of enquiry against petitioner vide order dated 31st August 2024 that recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee held on 16th December 2024 were kept under sealed cover. 6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned Counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is thus evident that the aspect of Departmental Promotion Committee having been held on 16th December 2024 is admitted. The only question requiring adjudication would be whether the departmental proceedings can be said to have been initiated vide order dated 31st August 2024 or the charge sheet dated 5th February 2025. 7. The said aspect has already been indicated clearly in the Government Order dated 28th May, 1997 particularly paragraph 2 (kha) thereof, which clearly indicates the procedure and manner of placing recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee under sealed cover. The said provision of the Government Order clearly indicates that procedure for sealed cover would be adopted in case the departmental proceedings have already been initiated against a delinquent employee for which charge sheet has already been issued. 8. The said aspect have also been considered by Supreme Court in the case of Ananta Saha (supra) in the following manner:- "25. There can be no quarrel with the settled legal proposition that the disciplinary proceedings commence only when a charge-sheet is issued to the delinquent employee. (Vide Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman [(1991) 4 SCC 109 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 387 : (1993) 23 ATC 322 : AIR 1991 SC 2010] and UCO Bank v. Rajinder Lal Capoor [(2007) 6 SCC 694 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 550] .)" 9. Upon perusal of aforesaid government order as well as judgment rendered by Supreme Court, it is thus evident that departmental proceedings against delinquent employee can be said to have been initiated only by issuance of charge sheet and not by any order for initiation of disciplinary proceedings. WRIA No. 10761 of 2025 2 10. In the present case, since admittedly, Departmental Promotion Committee was held on 16th December 2024 but the charge sheet was issued only on 5th February 2025 that is subsequent to the Departmental Promotion Committee, the mere initiation of disciplinary proceedings vide order dated 31st August 2024 would be irrelevant. In such circumstances, there was no occasion for the opposite parties to have kept recommendations of the departmental promotion committee pertaining to petitioner, under sealed cover. 11. In view of the discussion made herein above, the impugned order dated 26th May 2025 is hereby quashed by issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari. A further writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued commanding the opposite party No. 2 or any other competent authority to open the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee dated 16th December 2024 pertaining to petitioner and to act in accordance thereof. 12. In case recommendation has been made for promotion of petitioner on the post of Assistant Consolidation Officer, same shall be effected expeditiously within a period of four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the said authority. 13. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. December 5, 2025 prabhat WRIA No. 10761 of 2025 3 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench