2026:HHC:28786 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1633 of 2026 Decided on: 15.07 .2026 Rakesh Kumar … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ___________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Surender K. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rahul Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. : Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court inter alia praying for the following reliefs:- “(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to open the sealed cover and to promote the petitioner to the post of Kanungo w.e.f. 11.04.2025, with all consequential benefits, i.e. seniority and other monetary Benefits; (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant the arrears of pay to the petitioner by promoting him to the post of Kanungo w.e.f. 11.04.2025 alongwith interest @ 9% per annum;” 2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that a DPC was conducted for recommending the names of 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:28786 eligible Patwaris for promotion to the post of Kanungo, on 11th April, 2025. The petitioner, being in the zone of consideration, was also considered by the DPC but rather than recommending his name for promotion, a sealed cover procedure was followed in his case by the DPC, on the ground that there were criminal charges pending against him, which act of the Committee, as per the learned Senior Counsel, is not sustainable in law. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that in the present case, an FIR has been registered against the petitioner, i.e. FIR No. 5 of 2023, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018. He submitted that the petitioner was placed under suspension after he was arrested, but subsequently, the suspension was revocked. He also informed the Court that the petitioner was enlarged on bail, on 04/9/2023. He stated that no departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner or was pending as on the date when the DPC met for recommending the eligible Patwaris for promotion against the post of Kanungo. He further submitted that though an FIR stood registered against the petitioner, as mentioned herein above, but as on the date when the DPC met, not even a Challan under section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code was filed before the Court of law, what to talk of framing of charges, that is the stage, as has been held by this Court in CWP No. 3401/2026, titled Ram Kumar versus State of HP 3 2026:HHC:28786 and others, by following the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India and others versus K.V. Jankiraman and others, (1991) 4 Supreme Court Cases, 109, to be the stage when it can be said that there are criminal charges pending against an employee. He submitted that in this light of the fact, the act of the DPC of not recommending the petitioner for promotion against the post in issue is not sustainable in law. 3. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General referred to the reply filed to the petition by the Department and submitted that after registration of the FIR, the petitioner was arrested and subsequently released on bail. He was also suspended after his arrest, though subsequently the suspension was lifted. He submitted that though no departmental proceedings were initiated or pending against the petitioner but because there was a criminal case pending against him, sealed cover procedure was followed and the same shall be opened after completion of the trial. 4. I have heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner as also learned Deputy Advocate General and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith. 5. The limited grievance of the petitioner is that though as on the day when the DPC met, neither any departmental inquiry was 4 2026:HHC:28786 initiated or pending against him, nor any criminal case was pending against him, in terms of the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India and others versus K.V. Jankiraman and others and various judgments of this Court, yet sealed cover procedure was erroneously followed in his case. 6. These facts are not in dispute. 7. Though, the factum of no departmental inquiry having been initiated or being pending as on the date when the DPC met is not disputed by the State, but according to the State, as a criminal case was pending against the petitioner as on the date when the DPC met, therefore, sealed cover procedure was followed. 8. A perusal of para-8 of the petition demonstrates that therein it is categorically mentioned by the petitioner that after the lodging of the FIR against him under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, though the investigation was carried out, however, no challan/charge sheet had yet been filed in the competent Court of law till the filing of the petition. A perusal of the reply filed to this para of the petition by the respondents demonstrates that the contents thereof have been admitted being a matter of record. 9. Therefore, now the moot issue which is before this Court is that can mere filing or registration of an FIR, or for that matter even filing of a challan, can be treated to be pendency of a criminal 5 2026:HHC:28786 case against a delinquent, or not? 10. This Court recently in CWP No. 3401 of 2026, titled Ram Kumar versus State of HP and others, decided on 03.062026, by referring to its earlier judgment passed in CWP number 3466 of 2021, titled Rajeshwar Dayal Janartha versus State of HP and others, which judgment was passed by this Court by relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India and others versus K.V. Jankiraman and others, has reiterated that in terms of the Handbook on Personnel Matters, Chapter 16.324 and Chapter 16.32 of Volume-1 thereof, sealed cover procedure is applicable where Government servants are under suspension or Government servants, in respect of whom a charge sheet has been issued and disciplinary proceedings are pending, or government servant in respect of whom prosecution for criminal charge is pending. This Court in the said judgments has held that pendency of a criminal case means that charges should have been framed against the accused by the criminal Court and simple filing of challan in an FIR under Section 173 of Criminal Procedure Code does not mean that the same amount to pendency of a criminal charge against him. 11. In the present case, admittedly, no charges stood framed by the learned Trial Court as on the date when the Departmental Promotion Committee met or even on the date when the promotion 6 2026:HHC:28786 orders were issued. On the said date, the petitioner was not under suspension nor was facing a Departmental Inquiry also. 12. Therefore, in these peculiar circumstances, the Departmental Promotion Committee was not only required to consider the name of the petitioner, but was also required to recommend the name if found eligible for promotion and there was no occasion for following the Sealed Cover procedure. 13. Thus, as the following of Sealed Cover procedure in the facts of the present case is not sustainable, the same is held to be bad. The respondents are directed to forthwith open the Sealed Cover and in case the Departmental Promotion Committee has recommended the name of the petitioner for promotion, then promotion be conferred upon him against the post of Forest Guard from due date, that is the date when persons similarly situated as the petitioner were promoted, by granting him all consequential benefits including seniority as well as monetary benefits. The petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 15 , 2026 (narender)