https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156390 The court held that the respondent's promotion should not be considered until after the ongoing investigation and prosecution were resolved, as per the Sealed Cover Procedure. The court emphasized the importance of Paragraph 7 of the Procedure, which applied to cases like the respondent's where circumstances changed post-recommendation but pre-promotion. The court rejected the argument that the Department's delay hindered the promotion process, affirming the validity of the Department's interpretation of the Procedure. Consequently, the court set aside the Tribunal's direction to open the sealed cover for the respondent's promotion. en-us Tue, 18 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Sep 2013 12:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156390 The court held that the respondent's promotion should not be considered until after the ongoing investigation and prosecution were resolved, as per the Sealed Cover Procedure. The court emphasized the importance of Paragraph 7 of the Procedure, which applied to cases like the respondent's where circumstances changed post-recommendation but pre-promotion. The court rejected the argument that the Department's delay hindered the promotion process, affirming the validity of the Department's interpretation of the Procedure. Consequently, the court set aside the Tribunal's direction to open the sealed cover for the respondent's promotion. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 18 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156390