- (1.) THE petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force in the year 1985. In due course, he was promoted as Deputy Inspector of General (D.I.G.) w.e.f. 1.7.2005. On completion of five years service as D.I.G., which admittedly was completed on 1.7.2010, he was to be considered for promotion as Inspector General (I.G.). The Departmental Promotion Committee met on 18.11.2010 and on the said date the case of the petitioner was considered by the Committee and it was observed in paragraph 4.1 of the minutes of the Department Promotion Committee that as per instructions, Sealed Cover Procedure can be applied only if a charge -sheet is framed and that since there is no charge -sheet pending, the officer can be considered for promotion. However, the case of the petitioner was not cleared for promotion because an FIR had been lodged by the C.B.I. against the petitioner. Again the case of the petitioner was considered by the Department Promotion Committee, which met on 15.6.2011 in which the case of the petitioner was kept under "sealed cover" procedure on the ground that a C.B.I. case is pending against the petitioner.
(2.) AGGRIEVED by such action of the respondents, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with the prayer for a direction to the respondents to open the Sealed Cover forthwith and to act upon the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee dated 18.11.2010 and 15.6.2011 in respect of the promotion of the petitioner from the post of D.I.G. to I.G. It has further been prayed that the promotion of the petitioner should be given effect to on the post of I.G. with effect from the date on which his juniors had been promoted and he be given all the consequential benefits. We heard Shri Umesh Narain Sharma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Chandan Sharma appearing for the petitioner as well as Shri Tarun Verma and Shri Govind Saran, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Pleadings have been exchanged and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties this petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.
(3.) THE submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though some investigation by the C.B.I. was going on in the case of petitioner, but no charge -sheet had been submitted and merely because a case was registered by the C.B.I. against the petitioner, as per the provisions of the Railway Vigilance Manual his promotion could not be ignored. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. K. V. Jankiraman and others, : AIR 1991 SC 2010, that Sealed Cover Procedure is to be resorted to only after the charge -memo/charge -sheet is issued and the pendency of preliminary investigation prior to that stage will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure.;