Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the applicant could be denied promotion under the sealed cover procedure when no disciplinary or criminal proceedings were pending against him on the date of consideration for promotion.
Analysis: The applicant was found fit by the Departmental Promotion Committee and recommended for promotion. The record showed that by the date of consideration, the only criminal case against him had already ended in a closure report accepted by the competent court, and no disciplinary proceeding was pending. The governing promotional instructions, read with the settled principle that sealed cover can be applied only where suspension, a charge-sheeted disciplinary case, or pending criminal prosecution exists, did not justify withholding promotion merely because complaints had once existed. The cited administrative instructions and prior tribunal decisions supported the view that a completed or closed matter cannot be treated as a pending impediment to promotion.
Conclusion: The denial of promotion was unsustainable. The applicant was entitled to have the DPC recommendation implemented, with notional promotion from the date his juniors were promoted, financial benefits from the date of actual promotion, and corresponding seniority benefits.