Rajesh Bhandari vs. State Of Punjab And Another

Held

The Court held that the respondents' action in keeping the petitioner's name in a sealed cover was impermissible in law and contrary to the dictum of the Supreme Court in K.V. Jankiraman and Anil Kumar Sarkar. The Court found that as of the first DPC meeting on 19.08.2021, only an FIR was pending, and no charge-sheet had been filed, nor had any departmental charge-sheet been issued. The sanction for prosecution was accorded much later, and the challan was presented only on 31.01.2024, with charges yet to be framed. The ratio decidendi is that the 'sealed cover' procedure for promotion can only be invoked when disciplinary or criminal proceedings have reached the stage of charge-memo or charge-sheet issuance. The Court directed the respondents to open the sealed cover pertaining to the petitioner and take consequential action based on its recommendations. If the petitioner was recommended for promotion, it should be given effect from the date his immediate junior was promoted, along with all consequential benefits, within two months.

Facts

The petitioner, Rajesh Bhandari, a serving Excise and Taxation Officer, challenges two orders dated 22.09.2021 and 03.01.2025, which denied him promotion to Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (DETC) by resorting to the 'sealed cover' procedure. The petitioner was appointed as ETO in 2002 and promoted as Assistant ETO (AETC) in 2012. An FIR was lodged against him on 15.01.2020 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and IPC Section 120-B, following a tax levy on an associate of Narang Transport. He was suspended but later reinstated. His case was considered for DETC promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) on 19.08.2021 and again on 22.10.2024. On both occasions, his promotion was withheld and kept in a sealed cover, while his juniors were promoted. The challan in the criminal case was presented on 31.01.2024, and charges are yet to be framed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the 'sealed cover' procedure was rightly adopted by the respondents for denying promotion to the petitioner when, as on the date of the DPC meeting on 19.08.2021, no charge-sheet had been filed in the criminal case, nor had any departmental charge-sheet been issued to the petitioner, thereby violating the principles laid down in Union of India Vs. K.V. Jankiraman and Union of India and others Vs. Anil Kumar Sarkar? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends that the 'sealed cover' procedure can only be resorted to when disciplinary or criminal proceedings have commenced, meaning a charge-memo or charge-sheet has been issued. He argues that prior to the filing of the challan on 31.01.2024, the proceedings were merely at a preliminary investigation stage, which is insufficient to invoke the sealed cover procedure, citing K.V. Jankiraman and Anil Kumar Sarkar. He also relies on Coal India Limited & Ors. v. Saroj Kumar Mishra and Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited and Others v. Ananta Saha and Others, reiterating that departmental proceedings commence only upon the issuance of a charge-sheet. Respondents' arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents against the petitioner's contentions.