1 2026:CGHC:5105 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3174 of 2022 Shoeb Qazi S/o Late Gayas Ahmed Qazi Aged About 37 Years R/o Phase- 01, House No. 07, Street No. 04, Near T. V. Tower, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492007 ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Labor Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Labor Commissioner Labor Commissioner Office, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Additional Labor Commissioner Labor Commissioner Office, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through The Secretary, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Anup Majmmdar, Advocate For Res. Nos. 1 to 3/State : Mr. Abhyuday Tripathi, Panel Lawyer For Res. No. 4 : Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 29/01/2026 1. Instant writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has 2 been preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs :- “i. To kindly declare the sealed cover procedure as adopted by the respondent authorities for the petitioner's promotion I the departmental promotion committee's meeting vide its proceeding dated 23.03.2022 as illegal. ii. To kindly direct the respondent authorities to open the sealed cover envelop for promotion and issue appropriate order as per the recommendation of the departmental promotion committee and the petitioner may kindly be provided all consequential benefits. Iii. To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that presently the petitioner is working on the post of Labour Officer with the respondents- Department and is due for promotion on the post of Assistant Labour Commissioner. A meeting of departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was convened on 23.03.2022. The petitioner alongwith the other employees were considered for promotion on the post of Assistant Labour Commissioner. The Departmental Promotion Committee gave the recommendation for the promotion on the post of Assistant Labour Commissioner and list of recommended candidates were also mentioned in the minutes of the meetings. The petitioner’s name though considered but the result of which was kept in sealed cover envelope on account of petitioner being found guilty on an enquiry report dated 04.01.2019 by the Internal Complaint Committee constituted under The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (for brevity, ‘Act, 2013’). Against which, the petitioner had preferred the writ petition bearing WPS No. 2151 of 2019 and the Departmental Promotion Committee observed that after 3 the final order is passed in the said writ petition, the sealed envelope of the petitioner would be opened and proceeding for recommendation would be carried out. He further submits that a complaint was made by one of the female employee of the respondents-Department under the provisions of Act, 2013, for which, an internal complaint committee constituted under that Act has conducted an internal enquiry on the allegation so made against the petitioner and vide order dated 04.01.2019 found the petitioner guilty and recommended for imposition of penalty against the petitioner and compensation be also paid to the complainant. The petitioner challenged the said recommendation of the respondents before this Court in WPS No. 2151 of 2019. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court on 29.04.2025 with the following observation:- 12. In view of the above discussion, I feel inclined to allow the instant petition. Consequently, Order dated 04.01.2019 (Annexure-P/1), passed by the Internal Complaints Committee, constituted to prevent harassment to women at workplace, is set aside/quashed and stay order dated 27.3.2019, pertaining to staying enquiry proceeding by the Local Committee, passed by this Court, is recalled. Local Committee constituted under Section 6 of the Act 2013, which has initiated enquiry in respect of the complaint made by the respondent No.4/complainant against the petitioner, is set at liberty to proceed ahead and enquire the matter in accordance with law.” 3. In light of the liberty granted by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, again the enquiry was conducted and ultimately the charges leveled against the petitioner by the female employee of the respondents was found to 4 be baseless and the same was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 25.07.2025 (Annexure I/3), which has been filed alongwith an application for taking documents on record. Thereafter, the petitioner made representation to the respondents stating that as he has been discharged from all the allegations, the sealed cover envelope of the petitioner may be opened and appropriate recommendation may be made by the respondents. 4. Opposing the submission, learned State counsel for the State submits that though the petitioner was discharged from the allegations levelled against him by the female employee, but the petitioner was given a show cause notice with an intention to conduct a fresh departmental enquiry, which has been filed alongwith reply to the application for appropriate directions, thus, there is no irregularity or illegality in not opening the sealed cover envelope of the petitioner. Therefore, this writ petition sans merit and is liable to be dismissed. 5. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only reasons for keeping the sealed cover envelope of the petitioner was the pendency of the writ petition and it was observed in the departmental Promotion Committee that the sealed cover envelope would be opened after the petitioner is found to be discharged from the alleged charges and further proceedings would be done after opening the sealed cover envelope of the petitioner. Thus, even the respondents intent to initiate any departmental enquiry against the petitioner would not help them in any manner and the right of the petitioner to be considered was on the date of meeting of the departmental Promotion Committee any subsequent action would not evaporise the right of the petitioner for consideration for the promotion. For this preposition, he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme 5 Court in case of Delhi Jal Board Vs. Mahinder Singh1 paragraph 5 and Union of India vs. K. V. Jankiraman2 paragraph 32. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available record. 7. The factual scenario in this writ petition is almost undisputed. The meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee was convened on 23.03.2022 and the name of the petitioner was also in the zone of consideration. The recommendations were made for promotion on the post of Assistant Labour Commissioner and list of the recommended candidates were also mentioned in the minutes of meetings of Departmental Promotion Committee. Paragraph 16 of the proceedings of the Meeting of Departmental Promotion Committed held on 23.03.2022 is required to be quoted below, which reads thus :- 16. Recommendations enclosed in a sealed envelope: Following the Internal Inquiry Committee's investigation report dated 04.01.2019 finding the following officer guilty of sexual harrassment of women at the workplace, Mr. Kazi filed a writ petition bearing W.P. (S) No. 2151/2019 in the Hon'ble High Court, Bilaspur, in which, stay has been granted in favour of the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner's case has been kept in sealed cover envelope. If Mr. Kazi is found innocent upon the issuance of a final order in the said case, the department will open the sealed envelope and take action as recommended: 1 (2000) 7 SCC 210 2 (1991) 4 SCC 109 6 Sr. No. Seniority number Name of officer 01 02 Mr. Shoaib Kazi 8. Perusal of record clearly indicate that the petitioner was found guilty by Internal Complaint Committee constituted under the Act, 2013 of some complaint made by female employee of respondent-department vide an order dated 04.01.2019. The same was subject to challenge by the petitioner by filing writ petition bearing W.P.S No. 2151 of 2019 and ultimately this Court while setting aside the order dated 04.01.2019, granted liberty in favour of the respondents authorities to proceed ahead and enquire the matter in accordance with law. From the documents appended to the writ petition, it appears that subsequently, the petitioner was acquitted of the charges made in the said complaint and it was also communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 25.07.2025 (Annexure I/3). As such, the reasons, which have been assigned, to put the sealed cover envelope of the petitioner is no longer in existence in light of the subsequent event. 9. Learned counsel for the State/respondents tried to persuade this Court that the respondents State are intending to have fresh departmental enquiry and, thus, not opening the sealed cover envelope of the petitioner is not illegal. In the opinion of this Court, the aforesaid submission cannot hold water in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Delhi Jal Nigam (supra), in which, Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 5 held as under :- “5.The right to be considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of India, provided a person is eligible and is in the zone of consideration. The sealed cover procedure permits the question of his promotion to be kept in 7 abeyance till the result of any pending disciplinary inquiry. But the findings of the Disciplinary Enquiry exonerating the officer would have to be given effect to as they obviously relate back to the date on which the charges are framed. If the disciplinary inquiry ended in his favour, it is as if the officer had not been subjected to any Disciplinary Enquiry. The sealed cover procedure was envisaged under the rules to give benefit oi any assessment made by the Departmental Promotion Committee in favour of such an officer. if he had been found fit for promotion and it he was later exonerated in the disciplinary inquiry which was pending at the time when the DPC met. The mere fact that by the time the disciplinary proceedings in the first inquiry ended in his favour and by the time the sealed cover was opened to give effect to it, another departmental enquiry was started by the department, would not, in our view, come in the way of giving him the benefit of the assessment by the first Departmental Promotion Committee in his favour in the anterior selection. There is. therefore, no question of referring the matter to a larger Bench.” 10. Hon'ble Supeme Court in the matter of Union of India vs. K. V. Jankiraman (supra), has held in paragraph 32 as under :- In this case, no charge-sheet was served on the respondent employee when the DPC met to consider the respondent's promotion. Yet, the sealed cover procedure was adopted. The Tribunal has rightly directed the authorities to open .the sealed cover and if the respondent was found fit for promotion by the DPC, to give him the promotion from the date his immediate junior Shri M. Raja Rao was promoted pursuant to the order dated April 30, 1986. The Tribunal has also directed the authorities to grant to the respondent all the consequential benefits. The Tribunal has further stated in the impugned order that its order would not mean that the disciplinary proceedings instituted against the respondent-employee should not go on. We see no reason to interfere with this order. The appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, however, there will be no order as to costs. 11. Minutes of the Departmental Promotion Committee does not 8 disclose that in the event, if any future departmental enquiry is carried out against the petitioner, in that event also sealed cover envelope of the petitioner would not be opened. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for interference by this Court. Thus, this petition is allowed and it is directed that the respondents shall open the sealed cover envelope of the petitioner as per terms of DPC convened on 23.03.2022 within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and, thereafter, proceed ahead on the basis of result of that sealed cover envelope of the petitioner in accordance with law. 13. No cost. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput ) Judge Ami AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2026.02.07 14:50:05 +0530