2025 (8) TMI 1660 - HC - Money Laundering

Petition dismissed: sealed-cover placement invalid because statutory criteria for sealing an employee's file were not satisfied.

Union Of India And Ors Versus Sameer Dnyandev Wankhede.

The HC dismissed the petition, finding the impugned tribunal order valid because the statutory criteria for placing the respondent's file in a sealed ... Money Laundering - placing of officer's case in a sealed cover - charge sheet not filed - no disciplinary proceeding pending - no FIR has been registered by the CBI against the respondent - officer not suspended - HELD THAT:- From the narration of facts, it would be evident that as on today, there is no Departmental Proceedings pending against the respondent wherein any charge-sheet had been issued against him. The three conditions for placing the case of the respondent in a sealed cover, as set out in the Office Memorandum dated 14.09.1992 which has been issued in compliance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.V. Jankiraman [1991 (8) TMI 292 - SUPREME COURT], are therefore not met - Though the learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently submitted that there are grave allegations against the respondent for which an FIR and an ECIR have been registered, and CVC on earlier occasion has also advised initiation of disciplinary proceedings, the fact remains that neither a charge-sheet in the criminal cases has been filed, nor disciplinary proceedings by issuance of a charge sheet have been initiated so far. This Court is not to examine the reasons for the same. In the present case, there is no admission of guilt on part of the respondent, and it is not the case of the petitioners that investigation has been completed by the CBI or the ED, resulting in a charge-sheet being filed against the respondent. As far as the Departmental Proceedings are concerned, the petitioners itself has advised CVC not to proceed further with the same. In Kewal Kumar [1993 (4) TMI 340 - SUPREME COURT], the Supreme Court was considering a case where, based on an FIR registered against the respondent therein by the CBI, a decision to initiate Departmental Proceedings had been taken prior to the meeting of the DPC and, in fact, the charge sheet had been issued almost immediately following the DPC. In such peculiar facts, the Supreme Court held that a direction to open the sealed cover was not justified. It needs only a reiteration that no such fact exists in the present case. There are no infirmity in the Impugned Order passed by the learned Tribunal - petition dismissed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) could validly place the officer's case in a sealed cover when, as on the date of the DPC, (a) criminal investigations (CBI/ED) and departmental pre-proceedings existed but no charge-sheet or charge-memo had been issued and (b) the officer was not suspended. 2. Whether the limited circumstances permitting resort to the sealed cover procedure, as enunciated by the Supreme Court and reflected in Government Office Memoranda, were made out on the facts presented. 3. Whether the Tribunal erred in directing opening of the sealed cover and granting consequential promotion and seniority placement where the sealed cover procedure had been applied by the DPC. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Validity of placing the officer's case in sealed cover absent charge-sheet/charge-memo or suspension Legal framework: The sealed cover procedure is permissible only in narrowly defined circumstances - principally when disciplinary/criminal proceedings have been initiated by issue of a charge-memo or filing of a charge-sheet, or when other limited conditions recognized by controlling authorities are satisfied; suspension is an available administrative measure that may justify sealed cover use. Precedent treatment: The Court follows the doctrine that preliminary investigation alone (i.e., mere pendency of FIR/ECIR or investigative steps) is insufficient to trigger sealed cover; authority is placed on the principle that sealed cover is to be resorted to after charge-memo/charge-sheet is issued. Earlier decisions cited by the parties that permitted sealed cover in particular fact-scenarios were treated as distinguishable on their facts. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined admitted facts showing absence of any departmental charge-sheet or criminal charge-sheet as on the relevant DPC date and that the officer was not under suspension. The petitioners themselves had communicated that issuance of charge-memos was to be kept in abeyance. The Court emphasized that allowing sealed cover on the basis of preliminary or lingering investigations would produce injustice and run counter to established limits on the procedure; suspension exists as an alternate administrative remedy if allegations are serious and the authority wishes to withhold promotion. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - sealed cover cannot be resorted to merely because investigations are pending; it is permissible only after charge-memo/charge-sheet issuance or other narrowly defined conditions met. Obiter - factual observations distinguishing cases where investigations were completed or where admissions/suspension occurred. Conclusion: On the facts, the three conditions required for sealed cover under the applicable Office Memorandum and precedent were not satisfied; the DPC's use of sealed cover was therefore impermissible. Issue 2: Application of precedents relied on by petitioners (including authorities allowing sealed cover in exceptional facts) Legal framework: Precedents must be applied according to their factual matrix; where prior rulings permitted sealed cover, they did so in specific circumstances such as admission of guilt, suspension, prompt initiation of departmental proceedings, or rapid filing of charge-sheets. Precedent treatment: The Court distinguished prior authorities relied on by petitioners: (a) decisions where employees had admitted guilt, were suspended and formal charge-sheets were issued (thus factual basis for sealed cover existed); (b) decisions where charge-sheets were promptly issued around the time of the DPC; and (c) cases where departmental inquiry had been completed shortly after the DPC. The Court confirmed those authorities remain good law but are fact-specific. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted absence of admission of guilt, absence of suspension, absence of any charge-sheet in both criminal and departmental tracks, and an express decision by the administration to keep charge-memos in abeyance. The Court held that the cited precedents do not support sealed cover in such circumstances and are thus distinguishable. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - precedents allowing sealed cover do not imply a general permissive standard where only investigations are pending; they are confined to factual scenarios where formal proceedings or suspension exist. Obiter - discussions in earlier cases about administrative zeal to investigate do not justify sealed cover absent formal initiation. Conclusion: Reliance on the cited precedents fails on the present facts; those decisions are inapplicable because their factual predicates are not present here. Issue 3: Whether the Tribunal correctly directed opening of the sealed cover and consequential relief (promotion and seniority placement) Legal framework: Where sealed cover procedure is improperly invoked, affected candidates are entitled to have the sealed recommendations opened and to receive consequential relief if recommendations favour them; judicial review assesses legality of DPC procedure and whether conditions for sealed cover existed. Precedent treatment: The Court applied the established remedial approach: invalid sealed cover practice requires correction; earlier decisions that withheld relief were limited to circumstances when sealed cover was justified by formal proceedings or imminent departmental findings. Interpretation and reasoning: Having found sealed cover unjustified, the Court upheld the Tribunal's direction to open the sealed cover and ordered compliance with its directions (promotion effective date and seniority placement) within the prescribed period. The Court rejected the petitioners' contentions that ongoing investigations or CVC advice justified withholding of promotion, because the administration had itself kept action in abeyance and no charge-memo/charge-sheet existed. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where sealed cover is wrongfully applied, courts/tribunals can direct opening and grant consequential relief; obiter - emphasis that administrative agencies may not rely on vague or ongoing investigations to deny promotion absent formal proceedings. Conclusion: The Tribunal did not err; its directions to open the sealed cover and to grant promotion and seniority placement (subject to recommendation by the appointing authority as directed) are upheld. The Court dismissed the challenge and ordered compliance within four weeks. Cross-references and ancillary findings 1. The Court reiterated that suspension is an available and appropriate administrative tool where the administration wishes to forestall promotion due to serious allegations; absence of suspension undermines the case for sealed cover. 2. The Court noted administrative communications placing disciplinary action in abeyance (including intimation to the CVC) as material in concluding the preconditions for sealed cover were lacking. 3. The Court distinguished cases where departmental inquiries were completed or charge-sheets issued proximate to the DPC, and stressed that mere registration of FIR/ECIR or preliminary investigation does not satisfy the test for sealed cover.