Page No.# 1/11 GAHC010132202026 2026:GAU-AS:9924 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3478/2026 PARTHA PRATIM GOGOI S/O DHARMA GOGOI, R/O RISCON ENCLAVE, NEAR HOCKEY STADIUM, SAWKUCHI, P.O.- SAWKUCHI, P.S.- BASISTHA, DIST- KAMRUP (M) VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 06, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM 2:THE SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM HOME AND POLITICAL DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 06 DIST- KAMRUP (M) 3:DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM ASSAM POLICE HEADQUARTER ULUBARI GUWAHATI DIST- KAMRUP (M) 4:INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (ADMINISTRATION) ASSAM POLICE HEADQUARTER ULUBARI GUWAHATI DIST- KAMRUP (M) 5:ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (ADMINISTRATION AND ESTABLISHMENT) Page No.# 2/11 ASSAM POLICE HEADQUARTER ULUBARI GUWAHATI DIST- KAMRUP (M Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A DEKA, MS. S KAKATI,MR. S BORTHAKUR Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER 20/07/2026 Heard Mr. S Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J K Goswami, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, appearing for the State respondents. 2. The petitioner in the present proceedings has prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities to promote him to the cadre of Assam Police Service (Junior Grade), w.e.f. the date his juniors were so promoted, by opening the sealed cover, wherein, the recommendation in his case has been kept by the constituted Selection Committee. 3. The petitioner in the present writ petition has projected that he was promoted to the rank of Inspector of Police (UB) on 20.02.2019. The petitioner was eligible for being considered for promotion to the cadre of Assam Police Service (Junior Grade). Before such consideration could be made in respect of the petitioner, herein, a regular enquiry, being Regular Enquiry No. 3(3)/2014, was instituted against the petitioner on 19.03.2014 by the Directorate of Vigilance & Anti Corruption, Assam. During the pendency of the said enquiry, Page No.# 3/11 the Selection Committee as constituted for consideration of the cases of the incumbents in the zone of consideration figuring in the rank of Inspector of Police for promotion to the Assam Police Service (Junior Grade) was held on 15.12.2025. The petitioner being one of the Inspectors of Police in the zone of consideration, the case of the petitioner was also considered by the said Selection Committee in its meeting held on 15.12.2025. While considering the case of the petitioner, it having been placed before the said Selection Committee that a Regular Vigilance Enquiry was pending against the petitioner before the Directorate of Vigilance & Anti Corruption, the Selection Committee kept its recommendations in respect of the petitioner in sealed cover. The said sealed cover, having been not opened and persons recommended by the Selection Committee, including persons junior to the petitioner, in the cadre of Inspector of Police (UB), having been promoted to the cadre of Assam Police Service (Junior Grade), vide an order dated 29.01.2026, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition. 4. Mr. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, by reiterating the facts noticed hereinabove, has submitted that mere pendency of a Vigilance Enquiry against an employee would not bar his promotion. 4.1 Mr. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that no departmental proceeding was instituted against the petitioner, as on the date of meeting of the Selection Committee for consideration of the cases of eligible incumbents in the cadre of Inspector of Police for promotion to the cadre of Assam Police Service (Junior Grade). 4.2 Mr. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that no criminal proceeding was instituted against him and even if such criminal Page No.# 4/11 proceeding was instituted, no charge-sheet was laid against the petitioner as on 15.12.2025. Accordingly, Mr. Borthakur, submits that there was no bar for the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the cadre of Assam Police Service (Junior Grade), in terms of his merit assessed by the Selection Committee in its meeting held on 15.12.2025. 4.3 Mr. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Selection Committee could not have kept its recommendation in respect of the petitioner under sealed cover. 4.4 In support of his such submissions, Mr. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & other Vs. K. V. Jankiraman & Others, reported in (1991) 4 SCC 109. 5. Per contra, Mr. Goswami, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, submits that a Regular Enquiry having been instituted against the petitioner by the Directorate of Vigilance & Anti-Corruption, Assam, with regard to certain financial transactions made by the petitioner, the said aspect of the matter was considered by the Selection Committee and the Selection Committee in its meeting held on 15.12.2025, had kept the recommendations made in favour of the petitioner in sealed cover. 5.1 Mr. Goswami, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, submits that the Regular Enquiry instituted against the petitioner has not been concluded and accordingly, the sealed cover has not been opened and submits that on conclusion of the said Regular Enquiry, basing on the outcome thereof, requisite steps as mandated would be taken in the matter by the respondent Page No.# 5/11 authorities. 5.2 Mr. Goswami, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, however, on instructions, has submitted that other than the said Regular Vigilance Enquiry, now pending against the petitioner, no departmental proceeding has been instituted against him nor any charge-sheet has been filed by the Investigating Agency in a criminal proceeding instituted against the petitioner. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 7. The issue that arises for consideration in the present proceeding is as to whether the petitioner on account of a Regular Enquiry being initiated against him by the Directorate of Vigilance & Anti-Corruption, Assam, can be denied his due promotion to the cadre of Assam Police Service (Junior Grade). 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. V. Jankiraman (supra); on consideration of the said issue; had concluded that for the purpose of denying to an employee his due promotion, a charge memo in a disciplinary proceeding or a charge-sheet in a criminal proceeding is mandated to have been issued to the employee and must be pending at the relevant time when the case of such employee is so considered for promotion. It was further held that the pendency of a preliminary investigation prior to that stage, would not be sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the “sealed cover” procedure i.e. to deny to the employee, his due promotion. 9. The relevant conclusions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above noted case being relevant, is extracted hereinbelow: Page No.# 6/11 “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. 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: (ATC p. 196, para 39) Page No.# 7/11 "(1) consideration for promotion, selection grade, crossing the efficiency bar or 2024:GAU-AS:6312 Page No.# 9/13 higher scale of pay cannot be withheld merely on the ground of pendency of a disciplinary or criminal proceedings against an official; (2) ************************* (3) ************************* (4) the sealed cover procedure can be resorted to only after a charge memo is served on the concerned official or the charge-sheet filed before the criminal court and not before;" 17. 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.” 10. Following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. V. Jankiraman (supra); the Government of Assam in the Department of Personnel, proceeded to issue an Office Memorandum dated 09.05.2006, pertaining to the manner in which the promotion is to be considered in respect of a Government servant against whom departmental/disciplinary/Court proceedings are pending and whose conduct is under investigation. 11. Paragraph No. 2 of the said Office Memorandum dated 09.05.2006, provides that at the time of consideration of cases of Government servant in the Page No.# 8/11 zone of consideration for promotion; the fact as to whether a Show Cause Notice has been issued and a Disciplinary Proceeding has been pending and/or whether in respect of such Government servant, a criminal charge is pending, has to be brought to the notice of the Selection Committee to enable it to place its recommendations with regard to such Government servant in a “sealed cover”. It was further provided in paragraph No. 3 of the said Office Memorandum that no other details about any pending enquiry or the nature of charges are called upon to be furnished to the Selection Committee in the matter. 12. Paragraph No. 6 of the said Office Memorandum dated 09.05.2006, further proceeds to stipulate that if the circumstances as noticed in paragraph No. 2 of the Office Memorandum dated 09.05.2006, arises only after the Selection Committee had made its recommendations, the recommendations would be deemed to have been placed in “sealed cover” and such person shall not be promoted until he is exonerated of the charges. 13. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. V. Jankiraman (supra) and also the prescriptions made in the Office Memorandum dated 09.05.2006, clearly mandate that the promotion of an employee, can be denied only in the event, the circumstances as envisaged therein, arises in his case. In other words, the circumstances as set out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.V. Janikaraman (supra) not arising, the Government servant concerned cannot be denied his due promotion. 14. Promotion in respect of a Government servant can be withheld or kept in abeyance only in terms of valid rules. The Office Memorandum dated 09.05.2006, in the absence of a Rule made in the matter, would hold the field Page No.# 9/11 and the same having not provided that even when a Vigilance Enquiry is pending against a Government servant, his case for promotion cannot be considered and would be deemed to have been kept in “sealed cover”; the respondent authorities could not have only on the basis of pendency of a Regular Enquiry by the Vigilance Department against the petitioner, herein, denied to the petitioner, his valuable right to be promoted to the cadre of Assam Police Service (Junior Grade), in pursuance of his selection for the same. 15. The materials as brought on record, including the contentions made in the Affidavits filed by the respondents reveals that an enquiry in connection with Regular Enquiry No. 3(3)/2014 is pending against the petitioner and the collection of materials against him is underway. It is further brought to light that the stage for requiring the petitioner to have his say in the matter, had also not reached. Accordingly, it can be safely construed that the respondent authorities in connection with the said Vigilance Enquiry, had not drawn a satisfaction that a Disciplinary Proceeding and/or a criminal proceeding is required to be instituted against the petitioner, herein. It being the settled position of law that a Disciplinary Proceeding can be said to be instituted only on the issuance of a Show Cause Notice/Memorandum in the matter and the criminal proceeding would be so construed to be instituted when a charge-sheet in the matter is issued to the Government servant; the said circumstances not having arisen in the case of the petitioner, there exists no bar for promoting the petitioner to the cadre of Assam Police Service (Junior Grade), in terms of his selection, by opening the sealed cover. 16. Accordingly, in view of the above position, the denial of promotion to the petitioner along with his juniors in terms of his selection by the constituted Page No.# 10/11 Selection Board, cannot be upheld by this Court. 17. Having concluded that the petitioner, herein, was illegally denied his due promotion to the cadre of Assam Police Service (Junior Grade) and the justification as advanced by the respondents in this connection, not being found to be acceptable, this Court would further proceed to hold that the respondent authorities, in the event, the petitioner is so promoted to the cadre of Assam Police Service (Junior Grade), would not be left in a helpless situation, inasmuch as, despite such promotion of the petitioner, subsequently, it is found that the petitioner is guilty of the allegations so pending against him; the respondent authorities can take appropriate steps in the matter in accordance with law. 18. In view of the above conclusions reached by this Court, this Court directs the respondent authorities to open the sealed cover, wherein, the recommendations so made by the Selection Committee in its meeting held on 15.12.2025, with regard to the suitability of the petitioner for promotion to the cadre of Assam Police Service (Junior Grade), is so kept. 19. It is further provided that in the event, the Selection Committee had recommended for the promotion of the petitioner to the cadre of Assam Police Service (Junior Grade), the petitioner would be so promoted with effect from the date his juniors were so promoted, i.e., w.e.f. 29.01.2026, with all consequential benefits of pay, seniority, etc. Such order towards promoting the petitioner be issued by the respondent authorities, within a period of 1 (one) month, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 20. The arrears of pay now accruing to the petitioner, herein, on his promotion, in terms of the directions as passed by this Court, hereinabove, to Page No.# 11/11 the cadre of Assam Police Service (Junior Grade), be computed and released to the petitioner by the respondent authorities, within a period of 3 (three) months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 21. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant