Promotion assessment must ignore pending FIR allegations absent sealed cover conditions; unfitness finding was set aside and reconsideration ordered.

Where vigilance clearance has been granted, the DPC must assess promotion on the basis of the service record and relevant merit factors, and not on the underlying allegations in a pending FIR unless the governing sealed cover instructions are actually attracted. The office memoranda contemplated only a bare statement before the DPC, not disclosure of the criminal allegations, so the assessment had to remain uninfluenced by pending proceedings. Applying K.V. Janakiraman, the Delhi High Court held that preliminary investigation or pendency of criminal process alone could not justify denial of promotion consideration. The DPC's reliance on FIR allegations and the gravity of the charge was an extraneous consideration, so the finding of unfitness was set aside and the matter remitted to a Review DPC.

---

---

Issues: Whether the DPC could declare the petitioner unfit for promotion by relying on the allegations forming the basis of the FIR despite the grant of vigilance clearance and the applicable sealed cover instructions.

Analysis: The petitioner had been cleared for consideration for promotion, and the sealed cover regime under the governing office memoranda was meant to operate only in the situations specified in the instructions, with only a bare statement to be placed before the DPC. The underlying allegations or nature of the criminal case were not to be disclosed to the DPC so that its assessment remained uninfluenced by pending proceedings. The decision in K.V. Janakiraman was applied to reiterate that preliminary investigation or pendency of criminal process, without the stage required for sealed cover treatment, cannot by itself be used to deny consideration for promotion. Once the DPC relied on the FIR allegations and the gravity of the charge, it introduced extraneous considerations into the assessment of suitability.

Conclusion: The DPC's declaration of unfitness could not be sustained and was set aside. A Review DPC was directed to reassess the petitioner's case in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner succeeded, and the promotion claim was remitted for fresh consideration by a Review DPC without reliance on the impugned criminal allegations.

Ratio Decidendi: Where vigilance clearance has been granted and the governing instructions do not permit disclosure of the underlying criminal allegations, the DPC must assess promotion on the basis of service record and other relevant merit factors alone; reliance on pending FIR allegations renders the assessment vulnerable as being influenced by extraneous considerations.

---