Just a moment...
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 sealed cover procedure could be applied to the petitioner's promotion case merely because an FIR had been registered, in the absence of a charge-sheet or cognizance by the criminal court.
Analysis: The governing principle for sealed cover cases is that departmental or criminal proceedings must have reached the stage contemplated by the applicable office memoranda. The expression "prosecution in respect of criminal charge is pending" is to be understood in the sense explained by the Supreme Court and applied by the Court in earlier precedent, namely that mere registration of an FIR or preliminary investigation does not suffice. The Court also noted that the later office memorandum adopts the criminal-proceedings standard from the pension rules, under which criminal proceedings are deemed instituted only when the complaint or police report is taken cognizance of by the Magistrate. Since no charge-sheet had been filed and no cognizance had been taken, the petitioner could not be treated as facing pending criminal prosecution for sealed cover purposes.
Conclusion: The sealed cover procedure was wrongly adopted, and the petitioner was entitled to have his DPC recommendation opened and considered for promotion.