TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 1683
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....012. 3. The respondent no.1 notified the Non-Functional Financial Upgradation Scheme vide DoPT O.M. No. AB.14017/64/2008- Estt.(RR) dated 24.04.2009. The Paragraph 5 of the Annexure I to the said O.M. states that all instructions concerning grant of Non-Functional Upgradation presently applicable in the case of grant of Non-Functional Selection Grade (NFSG) to officers of Group 'A' Services would apply in the event of penalty, disciplinary proceedings, suspension, etc. The petitioner claims that with respect to grant of NFSG benefits, the conditions with respect to penalty, disciplinary proceedings, suspension, etc., are pari materia to the conditions stipulated by the O.M. No.22011/4/91-Estt.(A) dated 14.09.1992, which in turn prescribes that a sealed cover procedure for purposes of promotion can be adopted by the DPC only in the following three circumstances: a) where the officer is under suspension; b) where a charge sheet has been issued and the departmental proceedings for disciplinary action are pending; c) where prosecution for a criminal charge is pending in a Court of Law. 4. Returning to the facts of the present case, a Staff Court of Inqu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and therefore, an SCOI was ordered, vide Order dated 06.11.2018. The SCOI found the petitioner blame-worthy and the ADG (Spl Ops) ANO (Anti Naxal Operations) directed, inter alia, disciplinary action to be taken against the petitioner. In the meantime, the petitioner's case was considered for grant of NFFU by the Internal Screening Committee, and as the petitioner was found blame-worthy by the SCOI and a disciplinary action was contemplated against him, the Screening Committee decided to keep its findings in a sealed cover with the remark that further action in this regard will be taken once the disciplinary action pending against the petitioner is finalized. The claim of the petitioner for NFFU was, therefore, kept in abeyance. Subsequently, charge sheet dated 10.02.2020 was issued to him, and the petitioner has been found guilty of two out of three charges leveled against him, and has been sentenced with the following punishment by the GSFC: "(i) to take rank and precedence as if his appointment as Deputy Inspector General bore the date 26th day of June 2017, and, (ii) To be severely Reprimanded" 7. The said Order has been confirmed on 10.11.2021 by the Conf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the relevant calendar year in which the case of the concerned officers matures for grant of NFSG, unless such meeting is held in advance of the relevant year in which case the date of the meeting of the Internal Selection Committee will be relevant: a) Where the officer is under suspension; b) Where a charge sheet has been issued and the departmental proceedings for disciplinary action are pending; and c) Where prosecution for a criminal charge is pending in a court of law." 13. A reading of the above would show that it is only where the officer is under suspension or where a charge sheet has been issued and the departmental proceedings for disciplinary action are pending or where prosecution for a criminal charge is pending in a Court of Law, that the Internal Screening Committee can place its recommendation for the officer in a sealed cover. This is in consonance with the Judgment of the Supreme Court in K.V Jankiraman (supra) wherein it was held as under: "16. On the first question, viz., as to when for the purposes of the sealed cover procedure the disciplinary/criminal proceedings can be said to have commenced, the Full Bench of the Tri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... There is no doubt that there is a seeming contradiction between the two conclusions. But read harmoniously, and that is what the Full Bench has intended, the two conclusions can be reconciled with each other. The conclusion No. 1 should be read to mean that the promotion etc. cannot be withheld merely because some disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending against the employee. To deny the said benefit, they must be at the relevant time pending at the stage when charge-memo/charge-sheet has already been issued to the employee. Thus read, there is no inconsistency in the two conclusions." (Emphasis Supplied) 14. Applying the above to the facts of the present case, as on the date of the Meeting of the Internal Screening Committee, that is, 17.10.2019, none of the above three situations, which could lead to the sealed cover procedure to be adopted, existed. The Internal Screening Committee, therefore, erred in adopting the sealed cover procedure in violation of the above-referred Office Memorandums and the Judgment of the Supreme Court. 15. As far as the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that subsequently the petitioner has been found guilty and ....