2025 (4) TMI 1683 - HC - Indian Laws

Sealed-cover procedure invalid; sealed recommendation must be opened, NFFU granted with monetary relief and 6% interest within eight weeks

SANJAY YADAV Versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

HC held the Internal Screening Committee erred in adopting the sealed-cover procedure contrary to government OMs and applicable law. The sealed cover must ... Failure to grant the benefit of Non-Functional Financial Upgradation (NFFU) to the petitioner - representation against the refusal to grant NFFU was rejected - HELD THAT:- Though there can be no dispute to the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the Internal Screening Committee, for making its assessment of an officer, may adopt its own procedure, at the same time, it cannot act against the instructions issued by the government through the Office Memorandums and the applicable law, which permit adoption of the sealed cover procedure only in the event of either of the three circumstances mentioned hereinabove existing. The Internal Screening Committee could have, if law permitted, rejected the case of the petitioner for grant of the NFFU, however, could not have adopted the sealed cover procedure. The adoption of the sealed cover procedure by the Internal Screening Committee for the petitioner, cannot be sustained. The respondents are directed to open the sealed cover and act in accordance with the recommendations contained therein. In case, the petitioner is found entitled to the grant of the NFFU, consequential orders for the same shall be passed by the respondents within a period of eight weeks from today and the monetary benefit shall be released to the petitioner in accordance with law, within the same period and alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date the petitioner was entitled to the said benefit. The petition is disposed of. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether the Internal Screening Committee was legally entitled to place the petitioner's case in a sealed cover for grant of Non-Functional Financial Upgradation (NFFU) when, on the date of consideration, none of the three circumstances authorising sealed cover procedure (suspension; issuance of charge-sheet with pending departmental proceedings; prosecution for criminal charge) existed. 2. Whether subsequent initiation of disciplinary proceedings and eventual finding of guilt can retrospectively validate an earlier adoption of the sealed cover procedure by the Internal Screening Committee. 3. Whether an Internal Screening Committee may adopt its own methods of assessment for NFFU notwithstanding specific government Office Memoranda and binding judicial precedent limiting use of the sealed cover procedure. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Lawfulness of sealed cover use when none of the three prescribed circumstances existed Legal framework: The DoPT O.M. framing NFFU provides that instructions applicable to NFSG apply to NFFU in event of penalty/disciplinary proceedings/suspension; the specific O.M. governing NFSG/NFFU permits Internal Selection/Screening Committee to place recommendations in a sealed cover only where, as on the relevant date, (a) officer is under suspension, (b) charge-sheet issued and departmental proceedings pending, or (c) criminal prosecution pending. Precedent treatment: The Court follows the Supreme Court authority that the sealed cover procedure can be resorted to only after issuance of a charge-memo/charge-sheet or suspension/prosecution as specified; preliminary inquiry or mere allegations do not justify sealed cover. The Court reads the authorities harmoniously to mean that pendency of mere investigation is insufficient. Interpretation and reasoning: Applying the O.M.s and precedent, the Court examined the factual status on the date of the Internal Screening Committee meeting (17.10.2019) and found that none of the three conditions existed at that time. The SCOI had concluded blameworthy findings earlier, but departmental proceedings had not been initiated and no charge-sheet had been issued by that date; suspension and criminal prosecution were also absent. Therefore the sealed cover procedure lacked statutory and precedential foundation. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - the sealed cover procedure is permissible only when one of the three prescribed conditions subsists on the relevant date of consideration; any other use is unlawful. Obiter - observations on the content of the SCOI findings and possible discretionary approaches not amounting to sealed cover (e.g., rejection on merits) are ancillary. Conclusion: The Internal Screening Committee erred in adopting the sealed cover procedure in the absence of any of the three prescribed circumstances, rendering that procedural step unlawful and unsustainable. Issue 2 - Effect of subsequent disciplinary findings on prior procedural defect Legal framework: Principles on promotions/NFFU emphasize the candidate's right to be considered and that promotions/upgradations cannot be withheld merely because proceedings are pending unless the proceedings have reached the prescribed stage (charge-sheet/suspension/prosecution) at the relevant time. Precedent treatment: The Court applies the established rule that subsequent events do not cure an initial absence of the condition permitting sealed cover; the timing test is decisive. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court distinguished between the merits of entitlement (which may be affected by later findings) and the lawfulness of the committee's procedure at the time of consideration. Since the sealed cover was adopted improperly at the meeting date, later issuance of a charge-sheet and later conviction/sentence cannot validate the earlier procedural breach. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - subsequent disciplinary findings cannot retrospectively validate an earlier, unlawful use of sealed cover; procedural validity is judged by the facts as they stood on the date of decision. Obiter - comments that the Committee could have, if permissible, rejected the claim on merits rather than resorting to sealed cover. Conclusion: The subsequent finding of guilt and sentence by the General Security Force Court do not cure the procedural illegality of sealing the petitioner's case at the time of the Internal Screening Committee's meeting. Issue 3 - Scope of Committee discretion versus binding government instructions and law Legal framework: A Departmental/Screening Committee has discretion to devise methods for objective assessment but must act within limits set by government Office Memoranda and judicial decisions; it cannot adopt procedures contrary to such instructions. Precedent treatment: The Court accepts authorities recognizing Committee discretion for assessment but notes consistent judicial restraint where statutory or administrative guidelines prescribe specific procedural conditions (e.g., sealed cover only in enumerated situations). Interpretation and reasoning: While acknowledging that the Committee may adopt assessment procedures, the Court held that such discretion is not unfettered and does not permit contravention of O.M.s or the governing legal standard. The Committee's authority to assess merits did not extend to invoking sealed cover when its preconditions were absent. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - departmental discretion cannot override explicit administrative instructions and binding precedent limiting procedural steps; use of sealed cover outside prescribed circumstances is impermissible. Obiter - observations that the Committee could lawfully reject the petitioner on merits if justification existed, but could not substitute sealed cover for lawful methods. Conclusion: The Committee exceeded its lawful discretion by adopting the sealed cover procedure contrary to O.M.s and precedent; it must therefore reopen and determine the petitioner's case in accordance with governing instructions and law. Relief and consequential directions (operative conclusion) Findings: The sealed cover procedure applied to the petitioner's case is quashed as procedurally invalid. The sealed cover must be opened and the recommendations acted upon. If the petitioner is found entitled to NFFU, consequential orders shall be passed within eight weeks and monetary benefits paid with interest at 6% per annum from the date entitlement arose. Final legal conclusion: The petition succeeds on grounds of procedural illegality in adopting sealed cover absent its statutory preconditions; remedial relief includes reopening of the sealed recommendation and compliance with the Committee's recommendation in law, with specified timelines and interest for any monetary entitlement.