Order : Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J. 1. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the arbitrary, unjust, and erroneous action of the respondent authorities, whereby despite the Inquiry Committee/D.P.C. in its meeting held on 20.10.2022 having recommended the petitioner’s promotion from the post of Sub- Engineer to Assistant Engineer in the Municipal Corporation, Raigarh, the respondents have withheld the promotion by keeping it in a sealed cover envelope solely on the ground of pendency of a criminal case, which itself has remained stagnant and unprosecuted for several years due to inaction and delay attributable entirely to the respondent authorities. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent State to open the sealed cover envelope & consider the candidature of the petitioner from post of Sub- Engineer to Assistant Engineer with effect from Inquiry Committee meeting/D.P.C dated: 20.10.2022. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may also kindly be pleased to direct the respondent State to consider the grant of promotional benefit of petitioner on the post of Assistant Engineer with effect from petitioner being eligible for promotion from 20.10.2022 & also consider the seniority and candidature for the next higher promotional post with all consequential benefits. 10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost of the petition.” 3. Facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Sub-Engineer at Municipal Corporation, Raigarh (C.G.) on 24.11.2011 and was later transferred to Municipal Corporation, Zone-I, Bhilai. During her service at Raigarh, certain allegations of misconduct and corruption were levelled against several employees, including the petitioner, on the basis of which a letter dated 27.10.2016 was issued by the Under Secretary, Urban Administration & Development Department, and prosecution sanction was granted by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raigarh on 07.11.2016. An FIR was thereafter registered at P.S. City Kotwali, Raigarh under Sections 420, 409/34 IPC and Sections 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, for which the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by this Hon’ble Court on 06.01.2017. However, no charge sheet, show cause notice, or departmental inquiry was ever initiated against her. An FIR was thereafter registered at P.S. City Kotwali, Raigarh under Sections 420, 409/34 IPC and Sections 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, for which the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by this Hon’ble Court on 06.01.2017. However, no charge sheet, show cause notice, or departmental inquiry was ever initiated against her. Despite being granted Time Scale Pay (Level-12) on 27.05.2022, her case for promotion considered in the DPC meeting dated 20.10.2022 was kept in a sealed cover owing to the pending proceedings from 2016. Subsequently, in the Mayor-in-Council meeting dated 26.04.2023, it was resolved to continue the proceedings related to the alleged misconduct, resulting in the petitioner’s promotion being kept in abeyance arbitrarily for an indefinite period. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner respectfully submits that she was initially appointed on the post of Sub-Engineer under the Municipal Corporation, Raigarh (C.G.) vide appointment order dated 24.11.2011 issued by the then Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raigarh, and presently continues to serve as Sub- Engineer in Municipal Corporation, Zone-I, Nehru Nagar, Bhilai (C.G.) upon transfer. During her tenure at Raigarh, certain allegations of misconduct and corruption were levelled against a few officials of the Municipal Corporation, among whom the petitioner’s name was also included. It was alleged that upon a preliminary inquiry, the petitioner was found guilty of misconduct, and consequently, the Under Secretary, Urban Administration & Development Department, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.), vide letter dated 27.10.2016, directed the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raigarh, to pass an order for prosecution against the petitioner. Acting upon the said communication, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raigarh, sanctioned prosecution vide order dated 07.11.2016. Thereafter, on the basis of the aforesaid order, an FIR came to be registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Raigarh (C.G.), for offences punishable under Sections 420, 409/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in which the petitioner apprehending arrest approached this Hon’ble Court by filing an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. registered as MCRCA No.1186/2016 (Ku. Prabha Toppo vs. State of C.G.), and was granted anticipatory bail by order dated 06.01.2017. Prabha Toppo vs. State of C.G.), and was granted anticipatory bail by order dated 06.01.2017. It is most humbly submitted that despite the said allegations and subsequent developments, no departmental proceeding was ever initiated against the petitioner; no show cause notice or article of charge was served upon her; no charge- sheet was framed or communicated; and no opportunity of hearing was ever granted by the competent authority prior to taking any adverse action. The petitioner contends that her name was wrongly dragged into the controversy merely on the basis of unverified complaints and conjectures without any substantiated proof of wrongdoing. 5. It is further submitted that, subsequently, the petitioner’s performance and service record continued to remain satisfactory, and she was granted Time Scale Pay in Level 12 vide order dated 27.05.2022 passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raigarh, in which her name appears at serial number 10. Thereafter, while considering her case for promotion, the Additional Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bhilai, vide letter dated 06.10.2022, requested the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raigarh, to forward the petitioner’s service book for the purpose of promotion proceedings, and in compliance, the same was duly transmitted. A Departmental Promotion Committee (D.P.C.) meeting was held on 20.10.2022, wherein the petitioner’s case for promotion was taken into consideration. However, instead of deciding the same on merits, the respondents chose to keep her case in a sealed cover on the ground that certain proceedings initiated vide letters dated 27.10.2016 and 07.11.2016 were pending against her. Thereafter, a meeting of the Mayor-in-Council of the Municipal Corporation, Raigarh, was held on 26.04.2023, wherein various administrative matters, including the petitioner’s promotion which had been kept in a sealed cover, were deliberated upon, and it was decided to continue the said proceeding pertaining to the alleged misconduct of 2016. 6. The petitioner submits that the action of the respondents in withholding her promotion by invoking the sealed cover procedure, without initiation of any formal departmental proceeding or issuance of a charge memorandum, is wholly arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of the principles of natural justice as well as the statutory mandate contained in Rule 60(2) read with clause (5) of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. The said provision categorically mandates that before imposing any penalty, including the withholding of promotion, a reasonable opportunity of hearing must be granted to the concerned employee. The said provision categorically mandates that before imposing any penalty, including the withholding of promotion, a reasonable opportunity of hearing must be granted to the concerned employee. The respondents, however, failed to adhere to this statutory requirement and directly resorted to withholding the petitioner’s promotion, thereby acting in contravention of law. The petitioner further submits that in a similar factual matrix, one Shri Anil Kumar Bajpai, posted as Assistant Grade-II in the same Municipal Corporation, Raigarh, was considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Grade-I. The records reveal that despite a similar prosecution approval having been sought against him in the year 2016, the D.P.C. conducted on 16.12.2021 recommended his promotion, and subsequently, vide order dated 24.06.2022, he was promoted to the higher post. It is evident from the record that the Municipal Corporation had not received any prosecution-related material or adverse comment against Shri Bajpai, and therefore, he was granted promotion. The petitioner submits that both she and Shri Bajpai stood on an identical footing; however, while he was promoted, her case was kept in abeyance, which demonstrates a clear instance of hostile discrimination and arbitrary exercise of power by the authorities in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 7. The petitioner further relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. vs. Anil Kumar Sarkar, (2013) 4 SCC 161 , wherein it was categorically held that the departmental or criminal proceedings against an employee shall be deemed to have been initiated only when a charge memorandum in a disciplinary proceeding or a charge-sheet in a criminal prosecution has been issued to the employee. In the present case, as no charge memo, charge-sheet, or article of charge was ever issued, it cannot be said that any departmental or criminal proceeding was pending so as to justify invoking the sealed cover procedure or withholding the petitioner’s promotion. Therefore, in absence of any formal initiation of proceedings, the action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, and unsustainable in law. The petitioner accordingly prays that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to open the sealed cover and grant her promotion from the due date with all consequential benefits, in the interest of justice. 8. Therefore, in absence of any formal initiation of proceedings, the action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, and unsustainable in law. The petitioner accordingly prays that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to open the sealed cover and grant her promotion from the due date with all consequential benefits, in the interest of justice. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1 – the State, most respectfully submits that the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, being aggrieved by the alleged inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in not granting her promotion from the post of Sub-Engineer to Assistant Engineer in the Municipal Corporation, Raigarh, despite the recommendation made by the Departmental Promotion Committee (D.P.C.) in its meeting held on 20.10.2022, which was, however, kept in a sealed cover due to the pendency of a criminal case against her. It is submitted that, so far as the respondent, the State Government, is concerned, the present petition, as framed and filed, is devoid of substance and is liable to be dismissed at the very threshold, as no specific allegation or cause of action has been made out against the State. All adverse allegations, if any, levelled by the petitioner in the body of the writ petition against the respondent are categorically and vehemently opposed. A bare perusal of the pleadings and the documents annexed thereto would reveal that no specific relief has been claimed against the State, nor has any act of omission or commission been attributed to it. The petitioner is admittedly an employee of the Municipal Corporation, Raigarh, which is a distinct statutory body, and all administrative decisions concerning her service, including promotion, fall exclusively within the domain of the said Corporation. Accordingly, the respondent/the State is only a formal and pro forma party to the present proceedings. It is further submitted that the main and substantive reliefs sought by the petitioner are directed against the other respondents, namely, the Municipal Corporation, Raigarh, which has already filed its detailed reply/return before this Hon’ble Court for its kind consideration. The respondent, therefore, respectfully adopts mutatis mutandis the submissions, averments, and stand taken by the said respondent authority in its return for the purpose of the present reply, and for the sake of brevity, does not enclose a separate copy of the same. The respondent, therefore, respectfully adopts mutatis mutandis the submissions, averments, and stand taken by the said respondent authority in its return for the purpose of the present reply, and for the sake of brevity, does not enclose a separate copy of the same. In light of the foregoing, it is humbly submitted that the writ petition, insofar as it pertains to Respondent No.1/the State, is not maintainable in law or on facts and deserves to be dismissed 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.2 respectfully submits that the petitioner has challenged the alleged delay in her promotion from the post of Sub-Engineer to Assistant Engineer on the ground that, despite the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) held on 20.10.2022, her case has been kept in a sealed cover due to pendency of a criminal case. It is submitted that the sanction order of the post of Assistant Engineer made by the Government dated 02.09.2016. The Chhattisgarh Nagar Palik Nigam (Adhikariyon Aur Karmachariyon Ki Niyukti Tatha Seva Ke Nibandhan Evam Sharte) Niyam, 2018, along with the covering letter dated 31.01.2018. Further, the General Administration Department vide letter dated 27.08.2020 issued a direction mandating inclusion of a lady member in every selection, promotion, or scrutiny committee. In compliance thereof, the respondent No.2, vide order dated 16.03.2021, included Ku. Yagya Sidar, Sub-Engineer, as the lady member of the committee. Again, on 08.04.2021, for matters relating to time-bound scale, compassionate appointment, and finalization of gradation lists, another committee was constituted wherein Ku. Yagya Sidar, Sub-Engineer, was appointed as the lady member. Meetings of the DPC were held on 18.04.2023 at 3:00 p.m. and 08.06.2023 at 12:00 noon, wherein service records, DPC minutes, and pending issues relating to certain employees, namely, Shri Anil Bajpai, Shri Rajesh Pandey, and Shri Shyamlal Patel, were considered. Further, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raigarh, had constituted a committee on 07.12.2021 for considering cases of direct recruitment, time-bound scale, and promotion, in which also Ku. Yagya Sidar, Sub-Engineer, was appointed as the lady member. On 20.10.2022, the cases for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer were considered by the DPC constituted by the Mayor, wherein the names of two eligible candidates, Shri Arvind Rahul and Smt. Prabha Toppo (petitioner), were taken into consideration, and both were found capable and fit for promotion. Yagya Sidar, Sub-Engineer, was appointed as the lady member. On 20.10.2022, the cases for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer were considered by the DPC constituted by the Mayor, wherein the names of two eligible candidates, Shri Arvind Rahul and Smt. Prabha Toppo (petitioner), were taken into consideration, and both were found capable and fit for promotion. However, since Crime No. 248/2016 under the Prevention of Corruption Act was pending against the petitioner, in which sanction for prosecution had already been granted on 07.11.2016, the committee resolved to adopt the sealed cover procedure in respect of the petitioner’s promotion, with the observation that the sealed cover may be opened and promotion considered only after her acquittal; a copy of the DPC minutes dated 20.10.2022 is filed as Annexure R-2/8 . It is further submitted that the departmental promotion committees in question were different and independent in their constitution and scope of consideration, which explains the variation in their decisions. Hence, there is no discrimination, arbitrariness, or mala fide attributable to the respondent in keeping the petitioner’s case in a sealed cover pending conclusion of the criminal case. The action of the answering respondent is in strict conformity with the applicable service rules, government circulars, and settled administrative practice; therefore, no illegality or irregularity has been committed, and the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 10.I have heard the esteemed counsel appearing for the parties and examined the documents on record with the highest degree of diligence. 11. It is undisputed that an FIR bearing Crime No. 248/2016 has been registered against the petitioner for offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is also not disputed that sanction for prosecution was granted on 07.11.2016 by the competent authority. The petitioner’s main contention is that the proceedings are stagnant and no charge- sheet has been filed; hence, the sealed cover procedure should not apply. This Court finds merit in the said contention. The initiation of criminal proceedings for corruption, upon sanction and registration of FIR, cannot be the sufficient ground for the employer to adopt the sealed cover procedure to maintain integrity in public service. This Court finds merit in the said contention. The initiation of criminal proceedings for corruption, upon sanction and registration of FIR, cannot be the sufficient ground for the employer to adopt the sealed cover procedure to maintain integrity in public service. The principle governing sealed cover procedure was laid down in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman (1991) 4 SCC 109 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if an employee is facing a criminal case or departmental proceeding at the time of consideration for promotion, the employer is justified in keeping the findings of the D.P.C. in a sealed cover until such proceedings conclude. 12. Likewise, in Union of India and Others v. Doly Loyi , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2613 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under, and the relevant paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced hereinbelow:- “20. The core issue for consideration before this Court is: “Whether by the mere grant of prosecution sanction, it could be said that the prosecution for a criminal charge is pending against the respondent Government Servant and whether grant of sanction for prosecution could be a valid ground for putting the DPC recommendations in a sealed cover”? 21. On a bare perusal of OM dated 14th September, 1992, which covers the issue, it is clear that it prescribes the conditions under which the assessment done by the DPC is to be kept in the sealed cover. According to this OM, the sealed cover procedure can be resorted to in respect of three categories of Government servants i.e. Government servants under suspension, Government servants in respect of whom a charge sheet has been issued and the disciplinary proceedings are pending, and Government servants in respect of whom prosecution for criminal charge is pending. 22. Learned counsel for appellant made a pertinent submission that the case of the respondent falls under the third clause of the above OM, i.e. Government servants in respect of whom prosecution for criminal charges is pending. Thus, the question requiring consideration is as to whether a mere grant of prosecution sanction would be sufficient to infer that the prosecution for a criminal charge was pending against the respondent. Thus, the question requiring consideration is as to whether a mere grant of prosecution sanction would be sufficient to infer that the prosecution for a criminal charge was pending against the respondent. Similar issue came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman1, wherein it was held that sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after the charge memo/charge sheet is issued. The relevant extract is reproduced hereinbelow: “ 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.” 23. 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.” 23. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that the Ministry of Personnel, Government of India vide OM dated 2nd November, 2012 issued certain clarifications regarding the stage when a prosecution for criminal charge can be said to be pending, keeping in view the dicta laid down in K.V. Jankiraman (supra). Para Nos. 6 and 8 of OM dated 2nd November, 2012 states as under: “ 6. When a government servant comes under a cloud, he may pass through three stages, namely, investigation for a criminal charge in departmental proceedings and or prosecution of criminal charges followed by either penal/conviction or exoneration/acquittal. During the stage of investigation prior to issue of charge-sheet in disciplinary proceedings or prosecution, if the Government is of the view that the charges are serious and the officer should not be promoted, it is open to the Government to suspend the officer which will lead to DPC recommendation to be kept in sealed cover. The sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after the charge memo/charge-sheet is issued or the officer is placed under suspension. The pendency of preliminary investigation prior to that stage is not adopt the sealed cover procedure .” 24. Considering the above position, the disciplinary/criminal proceedings can be said to be initiated against the employee only when a charge memo is issued to the employee in a disciplinary proceeding or a charge-sheet for a criminal prosecution is filed in the competent Court. The sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after issuance of the charge-memo/charge-sheet is issued. The pendency of investigation and grant of prosecution sanction will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure.” 13. In light of the facts and circumstances of the present case, and having regard to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is evident that the procedure followed in preparing the DPC report in respect of the petitioner was not in accordance with law under the aforementioned facts and circumstances. 14. In light of the facts and circumstances of the present case, and having regard to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is evident that the procedure followed in preparing the DPC report in respect of the petitioner was not in accordance with law under the aforementioned facts and circumstances. 14. Reverting back to the case at hand, an FIR has been lodged against the petitioner for the offences mentioned, bearing Crime No. 248/2016. Subsequently, sanction for prosecution of a criminal case has been accorded by the State Government. However, to date, no charge-sheet has been filed before the competent jurisdictional criminal court, nor has any departmental enquiry been initiated against the petitioner. Consequently, the procedure of utilizing a sealed cover by the respondent authorities in relation to the petitioner’s promotion cannot be considered legally valid. 15. Considering the present facts and circumstances, the sealed cover of the DPC report shall be opened. If the petitioner is found eligible for promotion, she shall be promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer with effect from 20.10.2022 (the date on which similarly situated persons were granted promotion). Accordingly, the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits arising from such promotion, including fixation of pay in the promotional post, seniority from the due date, and arrears of salary accrued on account of the delayed promotion. The respondents are directed to ensure that all arrears and other monetary benefits are released to the petitioner within three months from the date of opening the sealed cover. It is clarified that the respondents remain at liberty to initiate or continue any criminal or departmental proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law. 16. With these observation(s) and direction(s) this petition is allowed.