Retrospective promotion and sealed cover procedure depend on the effective date, not later disciplinary developments.

The sealed cover procedure cannot be applied to deny retrospective promotion where no disciplinary proceeding, suspension, charge-sheet, or criminal case was pending on the effective date of promotion. The relevant date is the date from which the promotion is to operate, not the later date of the DPC meeting. Because the employee had no pending criminal or disciplinary action on 01.01.1996, later prosecution sanction and disciplinary proceedings could not retrospectively justify sealed cover treatment. The employee was therefore entitled to consideration on merits for promotion with effect from 01.01.1996, and the challenge to the Tribunal's order failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the sealed cover procedure could be applied by the Departmental Promotion Committee for considering promotion with retrospective effect from 01.01.1996 when no disciplinary proceeding or criminal case was pending against the employee on that date, though sanction for prosecution and disciplinary proceedings arose later.

Analysis: The governing office memorandum on sealed cover procedure applies where, at the time of consideration or before actual promotion in a prospective promotion exercise, suspension, issuance of charge-sheet, or pendency of criminal prosecution exists. The Court distinguished that position from a case where the promotion itself is to take effect retrospectively from an earlier date. Since on 01.01.1996 no criminal case or disciplinary proceeding was pending against the employee, later events of 2005 and 2006 could not justify use of the sealed cover procedure for the retrospective promotion exercise. The Court held that the relevant date was the date from which the promotion was to operate, not the later date of the DPC meeting.

Conclusion: The sealed cover procedure was not permissible; the employee was entitled to have his case considered on merits for promotion with effect from 01.01.1996, and the challenge to the Tribunal's order failed.

Ratio Decidendi: For a promotion granted with retrospective effect, the entitlement must be tested with reference to the date from which the promotion is to operate, and subsequent disciplinary or criminal proceedings cannot retrospectively trigger the sealed cover procedure if no such proceedings were pending on that effective date.

---