Sealed cover procedure applies only when disciplinary or criminal proceedings are actually pending at promotion consideration.

Sealed cover procedure could be used only if, on the date the Departmental Promotion Committee met, the employee was under suspension, had been charge-sheeted with pending disciplinary proceedings, or faced pending criminal prosecution. Mere contemplation of disciplinary action or unresolved complaints did not justify withholding promotion, and a later charge-sheet could not change the position existing when the recommendation was made. On that basis, denial of promotion was unjustified, and notional promotion with consequential benefits from the date juniors were promoted was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the sealed cover procedure could be applied to deny promotion when, on the date of the Departmental Promotion Committee, no charge-sheet had been issued, no disciplinary proceedings were pending, and no criminal prosecution was pending; and whether mere contemplation of disciplinary action or pending complaints could justify withholding promotion.

Analysis: The applicable office memorandum confined sealed cover treatment to cases where the Government servant was under suspension, where a charge-sheet had been issued and disciplinary proceedings were pending, or where criminal prosecution was pending. The relevant date for testing eligibility was the date on which the Departmental Promotion Committee met. On that date, the employee had been found fit and none of the specified disabling circumstances existed. Mere pendency of complaints or an intention to initiate proceedings was insufficient to deny promotion. The later issuance of a charge-sheet did not alter the position that prevailed when the recommendations were made.

Conclusion: The sealed cover procedure was not attracted, and the denial of promotion was unjustified. The employee was entitled to promotion from the date his immediate juniors were promoted, with consequential benefits.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the Tribunal's order failed, and the direction to grant notional promotion with consequential benefits was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Sealed cover procedure can be invoked only when, on the date of consideration by the promotion authority, the employee is under suspension, charge-sheeted with pending disciplinary proceedings, or facing pending criminal prosecution; contemplated proceedings or pending complaints are insufficient.

---