Employee entitled to benefits upon exoneration, not retrospective promotion. Disciplinary proceedings start with charge issuance.

The court held that disciplinary/criminal proceedings are considered pending only upon issuance of a charge-memo/charge-sheet to the employee. An employee found guilty cannot be rewarded with promotion retrospectively. When completely exonerated, the employee is entitled to benefits from the date of promotion delay. The court emphasized the employee's right to be considered for promotion, not a guaranteed promotion. Various appeals were dismissed or allowed, with directions to consider promotions and entitlements based on case specifics.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Date from which disciplinary/criminal proceedings are considered pending.
2. Course of action when an employee is held guilty in disciplinary/criminal proceedings.
3. Benefits entitled to an employee who is completely or partially exonerated.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Date from which disciplinary/criminal proceedings are considered pending
The court agreed with the Tribunal that disciplinary/criminal proceedings are considered pending only when a charge-memo in disciplinary proceedings or a charge-sheet in a criminal prosecution is issued to 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. The court rejected the contention that serious allegations taking time to collect evidence should prevent the promotion of the employee, noting that preliminary investigations often take an inordinately long time and may be kept pending deliberately.

Issue 2: Course of action when an employee is held guilty in disciplinary/criminal proceedings
The court disagreed with the Tribunal's finding that if any penalty is imposed on the officer as a result of the disciplinary proceedings or if he is found guilty in the court proceedings, the findings in the sealed cover/covers should not be acted upon. The court held that an employee found guilty of misconduct cannot be rewarded with promotion retrospectively from a date when, for his conduct before that date, he is penalized. Denial of promotion in such circumstances is not a penalty but a necessary consequence of his conduct. The court emphasized that an employee has no right to promotion, only a right to be considered for promotion, and that the promotion to a post, especially a selection post, depends on several factors including an unblemished record.

Issue 3: Benefits entitled to an employee who is completely or partially exonerated
The court agreed with the Tribunal that when an employee is completely exonerated, meaning he is not found blameworthy in the least and is not visited with the penalty even of censure, he should be given the benefit of the salary of the higher post along with other benefits from the date on which he would have normally been promoted but for the disciplinary/criminal proceedings. However, the court noted that there may be circumstances where the proceedings are delayed at the instance of the employee or the acquittal is with the benefit of doubt or due to non-availability of evidence attributable to the employee. In such cases, the concerned authorities must be vested with the power to decide whether the employee deserves any salary for the intervening period and to what extent.

Specific Judgments:

Civil Appeal No. 3018 of 1987
The Tribunal 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 was promoted. The appeal stands dismissed.

Civil Appeal No. 3021 of 1987
The Tribunal's direction to convene the DPC to consider the respondent's case for crossing the efficiency bar w.e.f. 14th September, 1983, on the basis of his confidential record at the relevant date and without reference to the contemplated disciplinary proceedings, is proper and valid. The appeal stands dismissed.

Civil Appeal No. 3083 of 1990
The Tribunal rightly directed the appellant to open the sealed cover and, if the DPC in 1982 had found the respondent fit for promotion, to give him the promotion from the date on which his immediate junior was promoted. The appeal is allowed partly, with the modification that the appellant-authority must consider whether the employee is entitled to any arrears of salary and to what extent.

Civil Appeal No. 4379 of 1990
The Tribunal rightly directed the authorities to open the sealed cover. The appeal is allowed partly, with the modification that the appellant-authority must consider whether the employee is entitled to any arrears of salary and to what extent.

Civil Appeals Nos. 51-55 of 1990
The Tribunal was not justified in mechanically applying the decision of the Full Bench to the facts of the present case. Even if the results in the sealed cover entitle the employees to promotion from the date their immediate juniors were promoted, they should not be given any arrears of salary. The appeals are allowed.

S.L.P. (Civil) No. 1094 of 1990
The appeal is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. The appellant-authorities are directed to examine whether the respondent-employee is entitled to any salary and to what extent.

S.L.P. (Civil) No. 11680 of 1991
The appeal stands dismissed. The Tribunal's interim order directing the appellant-Union of India to open the sealed cover and give effect to the recommendations if the respondent-employee is found fit for promotion is upheld.

S.L.P. (Civil) No. 2344 of 1990
The appeal is allowed, and the finding of the Tribunal is set aside. The DPC met in June 1988 when the employee was already served with a charge-sheet, and the denial of promotion was justified.

---