# Braham Singh v. UCO Bank & Anr

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 1599
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-20
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 7257 of 2025
- **Bench:** Shree Prakash Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/braham-singh-v-uco-bank-anr-54375
- **Pages:** 12

## Text

_Characters 0–39,894 of 40,444. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39894 for what follows._

4 All. Braham Singh Vs. UCO Bank & Anr.
1599
(2026) 4 ILRA 1599
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Writ A No. 7257 of 2025

Braham Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
UCO Bank & Anr. ...Respondents

Issue(s) for consideration
(a) In the inquiry report, if it is found that the charges are not proved, whether it can be said that no
disciplinary proceeding is pending against an employee?
(b) When would the pendency of criminal proceedings be said to become effective?
(c) What is the precise legal threshold or date upon which a criminal proceeding is considered "pending" to
justify or maintain a sealed cover procedure under U.P. Government Orders?
(d) Whether the pendency of the matter for sanction of criminal prosecution would have any bearing on
consideration of the promotion of an employee, by the DPC?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - Greator NOIDA Industrial Development Authority Service Regulations, 1993:
Regulation 75 - The petitioner, Braham Singh, was appointed as an Assistant Manager (Civil) in the Greater
NOIDA Industrial Development Authority in 2002 and climbed through the ranks to Manager Grade I by 2014.
An adversarial complaint was lodged against him on 13.08.2014. He was completely exonerated by the State
Government in departmental inquiry (Report dated 14.03.2018). However, following the introduction of the
centralized service rules in June 2018 (making the State Government the official appointing authority), a
second inquiry on the exact same charges was launched in August 2019. The inquiry officer in this second
proceeding also found that the charges were not proved (Report dated 24.10.2019). (Para 26)
While the second inquiry report was awaiting final consideration by the disciplinary authority, the
Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) met on 24.12.2020, to consider promotions to Senior Manager
(Civil). Due to the structural pendency of the disciplinary proceeding, the DPC adopted the "sealed cover
procedure" for the petitioner, and his junior was promoted on 29.12.2020. In January 2022, the State
Government disagreed with the inquiry officer's clean chit and awarded the petitioner a punishment of
'censure'. This censure was subsequently quashed by the State Public Services Tribunal in May 2023, and on
11.04.2025, the State Government formally cancelled the censure order entirely. Simultaneously, a
vigilance/criminal anti-corruption investigation was underway; prosecution sanction was granted on
18.11.2022, and a criminal charge sheet was filed before the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Meerut, on
10.10.2023.
After his departmental censure was cancelled, the petitioner filed a representation on 16.04.2025, requesting
that his sealed cover be opened and he be promoted retrospectively from the date his junior was promoted.
The State Government rejected this representation on 12.06.2025, citing the ongoing, active anti-corruption
criminal case. The petitioner challenged this rejection in the High Court.
1600 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
B. In the inquiry report, if it is found that the charges are not proved, whether it can be said that
no disciplinary proceeding is pending against an employee?

This Court examines the two main grounds taken while passing the order impugned herein. First, from the
disciplinary proceedings instituted against the petitioner, it reveals that when the DPC was convened on
24.12.2020, the inquiry report was in motion, wherein the inquiry officer found that the charges were not
proved against the petitioner. The law is very clear on this point that it is not the pendency of the inquiry
proceeding, but the pendency of the disciplinary proceeding, which is to be considered, while
considering the provisions of clauses (2) and (3) of the GO dated 28.5.1997. The same clearly
speaks about the pendency of 'disciplinary proceedings', and therefore, if the inquiry officer reaches to
the conclusion that no charges are proved against an employee, that does not mean that no
disciplinary proceeding is pending against such an employee. Therefore, this Court finds that the
DPC, which was convened on 24.12.2020, has rightly resorted to the procedure of sealed cover. The fact
remains that the inquiry proceeding, which was instituted by the State Government, has been concluded, and
the petitioner was awarded the punishment of 'Censure', though at a subsequent stage, i.e., on 11.4.2025,
the State Government canceled the punishment of censure awarded on 25.1.2022. Thus, it is abundantly clear
that no departmental proceeding is pending against the petitioner as of now. (Para 28)

C. When would the pendency of criminal proceedings be said to become effective?

Coming to the second issue, which, in fact, is in the way of opening of the sealed cover, is that the criminal
proceedings are pending against the petitioner. The counter-affidavit filed by the State Government reveals
that the prosecution sanction was granted, on 18.11.2022, and the charge sheet was submitted on
10.10.2023. Admittedly, the DPC for promotion of the Senior Manager (Civil) was held on 24.12.2020, and till
that period of time, no criminal proceeding was initiated. Clause 2(c) of the GO dated 28.5.1997, is
abundantly clear that once the charge sheet is submitted in the court, by the prosecution, that
would be the date, which will be considered for the pendency of criminal proceedings. (Para 29)

D. Sealed cover procedure can be resorted to only after the charge memo is served upon the
concerned official, in contemplation of the disciplinary proceeding or a charge sheet is filed
before the criminal court, in a criminal proceeding. In the present case, the charge sheet was
submitted in a criminal prosecution, in the court, on 10.10.2023. It is settled law that no sealed cover
proceeding could be undertaken, if, on the date of the DPC, no charge sheet had been issued in
the matter of departmental proceedings, and in a criminal case, the charge sheet had not been
submitted before the court concerned. In the instant case, when the DPC was held, chargesheet was not
submitted in the court, thus, the criminal proceeding cannot be said to be pending. (para 30)

E. Whether the pendency of the matter for sanction of criminal prosecution would have any
bearing on consideration of the promotion of an employee, by the DPC?

The pendency of sanction of criminal prosecution would not suffice to enable the authorities to
adopt the sealed cover procedure. So far as the present case is concerned, though the application for the
prosecution's sanction was pending, but the decision was taken on 18.11.2022, that too after the DPC was
convened on 24.12.2020, and therefore, the sanction of prosecution will not make any difference, for
consideration of promotion of an employee, by the D.P.C. Thus, the fact that the sanction of prosecution was
pending, would have no adversarial effect on, for consideration of promotion of the petitioner. (Para 31)

The provisions of GO dated 28.5.1997, has escaped the attention of the authorities for considering the case of
the petitioner, in its right perspective. The order impugned dated 12.6.2025 is quashed. (Para 32, 33)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited
4 All. Braham Singh Vs. UCO Bank & Anr.
1601
1. Abhishek Prabhakar Awasthi Vs. New India Assurance Company, 2014 (32) LCD 405 (Para 15)
2. Union of India (UOI) and others Vs. K.V. Jankiraman and others, AIR 1991 SC 2010 (Para 16)
3. Union of India and others Vs. Doly Loyi, 2024 SCC Online SC 2613 (Para 20)

List of Acts
 Greator NOIDA Industrial Development Authority Service Regulations, 1993.

List of Keywords
 service, industrial, development, authority, promotion, complaint, departmental, inquiry, sealed cover,
criminal prosecution.

Appearances for Parties
For Petitioner(s): Vijay Kumar Srivastava
For Respondent(s): C.S.C., Manoj Sahu

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Vijay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Brijendra
Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated
12.6.2025 passed by the respondent no.1 whereby the representation of the petitioner for promotion
to the post of Senior Manager (Civil) has been rejected.

3. The brief factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner had initially been appointed as
Assistant Manager (Civil) in the department of Greater NOIDA Industrial Development Authority,
Gautam Buddh Nagar, on 13.9.2002 and he was promoted to the post of Manager Grade II on
10.3.2008 and thereafter to the post of Manager Grade I within (Project), on 14.11.2014. The wife
of the brother of the petitioner, namely, Smt. Suresh Devi, lodged an F.I.R. on 11.6.2014 against
several accused persons, out of which one accused, namely, Tarun, being whimsical filed a
complaint against the petitioner, on 13.8.2014, before the Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister,
U.P. and Director, Enforcement Directorate, U.P.

4. Thereafter, by the order dated 1.10.2014, a departmental inquiry was instituted by the State
Government on the above-stated complaint, and the petitioner was asked to submit a reply, vide
letter dated 3.11.2014. In response thereto, a reply was submitted by the petitioner on 16.12.2014,
whereupon the inquiry officer submitted his report on 14.3.2018, wherein the petitioner was
exonerated from the charges leveled against him.

5. The appointing authority, being satisfied with the inquiry report, dropped the inquiry
proceedings and submitted a report to the State Government vide letter dated 27.6.2018 but, since,
in the meantime, the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Development Authorities Centralized Services Rules,
2018 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules 2018') were promulgated, which came into effect on
22.6.2018, wherein the State Government was made the appointing authority of the petitioner,
therefore, another inquiry was instituted against the petitioner on 14.8.2019, under the Rules of
1999, on the basis of the same complaint dated 14.8.2014, and the charge sheet was served upon
the petitioner on 14.8.2019, with the charges that the petitioner did not inform the competent
1602 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
authority about the properties and cars purchased by him during the period from 16.9.2002 to
18.12.2015, wherein the reply was submitted by the petitioner on 30.9.2019 and the inquiry officer
submitted his inquiry report on 24.10.2019 wherein the charges leveled against the petitioner were
not found proved.

6. In the meantime, the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'the
DPC') was held on 24.12.2020, and the decision with respect to the promotion of the petitioner was
kept in a sealed cover, while adopting the sealed cover procedure, on the ground that the
departmental proceeding is pending against him and on the basis of the recommendation of the
DPC, the person junior to the petitioner, namely, Anil Kumar Jauhri, was promoted to the post of
Senior Manager (Civil), vide promotion letter dated 29.12.2020.

7. On 15.12.2021, the respondent no.1, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner, thereby
mentioning disagreement with the inquiry report dated 24.10.2019, on the ground that the UP
Government Servant Conduct Rules,1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Conduct Rules 1956') are
applicable to the employees of the Authority, in the light of Regulation 75 of Greator NOIDA
Industrial Development Authority Service Regulations, 1993 (hereinafter referred as to 'the
Regulations, 1993'), therefore, the petitioner has violated the provisions of Rule 24(3) of the
Conduct Rules, 1956. After the aforesaid show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, he
submitted his reply on 23.12.2021.

8. Considering the reply of the petitioner, on 25.1.2022 the respondent no.1/the State
Government, passed the punishment order awarding the punishment of 'censure' to the petitioner,
which was challenged by the petitioner in Claim Petition No. 1264 of 2022 with the prayer to quash
the punishment order and also to direct the respondents to promote the petitioner on the post of
Senior Manager (Project), with effect from the date, junior to the petitioner, namely, Anil Kumar
Jauhari, was promoted, i.e., on 29.12.2020.

9. The learned Tribunal, after considering all the facts and circumstances, allowed the claim
petition, vide judgment and order dated 17.5.2023 and quashed the punishment order dated
25.1.2022, while giving liberty to the respondents to issue fresh show cause notice and pass
appropriate order within three months.

10. The facts remains that on the basis of the complaint dated 13.8.2014, with the same set of
charges, a vigilance inquiry was also instituted by the respondent no.1, wherein prosecution
sanction was granted on 18.11.2022, and the charge sheet was filed on 10.10.2023.

11. After the aforesaid judgment and order was passed by the Tribunal, when the respondent
authority did not comply, the petitioner filed Contempt Petition No.37 of 2024, before the Tribunal,
wherein notices were issued on 6.2.2024, whereafter on 4.11.2024, the respondent no.1 issued a
show cause notice to the petitioner without seeking permission of the Court.

12. The show cause notice was challenged in Writ-A No.10861 of 2024, wherein an interim
order was passed on 13.12.2024, providing that 'until further orders, no action would be taken by
the respondents in purusance to the notice dated 4.11.2024, against the petitioner. Thereafter, on
4 All. Braham Singh Vs. UCO Bank & Anr.
1603
11.4.2025, the respondent no.1 passed the order, canceling the punishment of 'censure' awarded to
the petitioner, on 25.12022. The petitioner preferred a representation before respondent no.1, on
16.4.2025, requesting that the petitioner be promoted to the post of Senior Manager, (Civil), with
effect from the date, his junior was promoted, after opening the sealed cover, whereupon, the
impugned order dated 12.6.2025 has been passed by the State Government, rejecting the claim of
the petitioner made through representation dated 16.4.2025.

13. The contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner, after
his initial appointment to the post of Assistant Manager (Civil), was promoted to Manager Grade II
and thereafter Manager Grade I, and he is working in the Department to the best satisfaction of his
superiors, and his career remained unblemished. He submitted that because of the annoyance of the
complainant from bhabhi of the petitioner, who lodged FIR against several accused persons and out
of whom, one Tarun, made complaint against the petitioner, under annoyance on 13.8.2014, and the
inquiry proceeded against the petitioner and the inquiry officer, after conducting the inquiry,
submitted its report while observing that no charge was found proved and thereafter, the matter was
kept on pending with the appointing/disciplinary authority, but in the meantime, on 24.12.2020, the
DPC was convened for the promotion to the post of Senior Manager ( Civil), and uptill the DPC
was convened, the factual position was that the inquiry officer did not find any charge proved
against the petitioner, though the DPC has wrongly undertaken the sealed cover proceeding so far
as the promotion of the petitioner is concerned.

14. He further submitted that after the Rules of 2018 were promulgated by the State
Government, the State was made the appointing authority for the petitioner and thereafter, another
inquiry was instituted by the State, wherein the punishment of 'censure' was awarded, though after
filing the claim petition, the order was passed thereafter, the contempt petition was instituted,
which resulted cancellation of the punishment order dated 25.1.2022. The order of punishment was
cancelled on 11.4.2025, therefore, the petitioner had rightly moved a representation on 16.4.2025
for consideration of his promotion to the post of Senior Manager (Civil), but without application of
mind, and in an arbitrary manner, the representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the order
dated 12.6.2025.

15. Adding his arguments, he submitted that the show cause notice dated 4.11.2024 was issued
to the petitioner, in compliance with the order dated 17.5.2023, passed by the learned Tribunal, i.e.,
after more than five and a half months of the order passed, which vitiates the proceedings of show
cause notice in light of the judgment and order rendered in the case of Abhishek Prabhakar Awasthi
Vs. New India Assurance Company, reported in 2014 (32) LCD 405.

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has emphasized that since on the date of consideration
of the promotion by the DPC, , i.e., on 24.12.2020, the report of the inquiry officer was in effect,
wherein it was found that no charges were proved against the petitioner, and therefore, there was no
inquiry pending as such or any adversarial fact available against the petitioner so as to lead the
occasion for the DPC, adopting the sealed cover procedure. In support of his contention, he has
placed reliance on a judgment rendered in the case of Union of India (UOI) and others versus K.V.
Jankiraman and others reported in AIR 1991 SC 2010 and has referred to paragraph 6 of the
judgment, which is extracted as under:-
1604 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"On the first question, viz., as to when for the purposes of the sealed cover procedure the
Tribunal has held that it is only when a charge-memo in a disciplinary proceedings the
disciplinary/criminal proceedings can be said to have commenced, the Full Bench of or a chargesheet in a criminal prosecution is issued to the employee that it can be said that the departmental
proceedings/criminal prosecution is initiated against the employee. The sealed cover procedure is to
be resorted to only after the charge memo/charge-sheet is issued. The pendency of preliminary
investigation prior to that procedure. We are in agreement with the Tribunal on this point. The
contention not be sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the sealed cover advanced by the
learned Counsel for the appellant-authorities that when there are serious allegations and it takes
time to collect necessary evidence to prepare and issue charge-memo/charge-sheet, it would not be
in the Interest of the purity of administration to reward the employee with a promction, increment
etc. does not impress us. The acceptance of this contention would result in Injustice to the
employees in many cases. As has been the experience so far, the preliminary investigations take an
inordinately long time and particulariv when they are initiated at the instance of the Interested
persons, they are kept pending deliberately. Many times they never result in the issue of any
charge-memo/charge-sheet. If the allegations are serious and the authorities are keen in
investigating them, ordinarily it should not take much time to collect the relevant evidence and
finalise the charges. What is further, if the charges are that serious, the authorities have the power
to suspend the employee under the relevant rules, and the suspension by itself permits a resort to
the sealed cover procedure. The authorities thus are not without a remedy.

It was then contended on behalf of the authorities that conclusions nos 1 and 4 of the Full
Bench of the Tribunal are inconsistent with each other. Those conclusions are as follows:

(1) consideration for promotion, selection grade, crossing the efficiency bar or higher
scale of pay cannot be withheld merely on the ground of pendency of a disciplinary or criminal
proceedings against an official;

(3)

(4)...

(4) the sealed cover procedure can be resorted only after a charge memo is served on the
concerned official or the charge sheet filed before the criminal Court and not before.

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 chargememo/charge-sheet has already been issued to the employee. Thus read, there is no Inconsistency
in the two conclusions.We, therefore, repel the challenge of the appellant-authorities to the said
finding of the Full Bench of the Tribunal."
4 All. Braham Singh Vs. UCO Bank & Anr.
1605

17. Placing reliance on the aforesaid judgment, he submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held that pending of a preliminary investigation will not be sufficient to enable the authorities
to adopt sealed cover procedure, and after the aforesaid judgment and order was passed, the
Government of UP issued an exhaustive Government Order dated 28.5.1997, wherein in clauses 2,
3, and 4, the grounds for adopting sealed cover procedure have been given. Clauses (2), (3) & (4)
of the Government Order dated 28.5.1997 are extracted as under:-

सुंस्त ततयों को म हरबुंद तलफाफेमें रखे जाने की पररतस्थततयाुं

 "(२) उपरोस्तान सार तवचार कर चयन सतमतत द्वारा स्पष्ट सुंस्त तत की जायेगी परन्त चयन सतमतत की सुंस्त तत को तनम्नतलतखत पररतस्थततयों
में(चाहेचयन सतमतत द्वारा सम्बतन्ित कातमसक को प्रोन्नतत केतलए सुंस्त त तकया गया हो या नहीं) अथासत्दोनों ही दशाओुं मेंकायसवृत्त मेंअुंतकत नहीं तकया
जायेगा वरन्ऐसेकातमसक केसम्बन्ि में कायसवृत्त मेंमात्र यह अुंतकत करतेहुए तक ययन सतमतत की सुंस्त तत म हरबुंद तलफाफेमेंरखी ह,ैै उस कातमसक केतवषय
मेंचयन सतमतत की सुंस्त तत एक अलग शीट पर अुंतकत की जायेगी, तजसेम हरबन्द तलफाफे मेंरखा जायेगा और तलफाफे के ऊपर अुंतकत कर तदया जायेगा
तक इसमें अम क कातमसक की झोन्नतत केतवषय में चयन सतमतत की तसफाररश रखी गयी ह-ैै (क) यतद कातमसक तनलतम्बत चल रहा ह,ैै (ख) यतद
कातमसक केतवरुद्ध अन शासतनक कायसवाही या प्रशासनातिकरण की कायसवाही लतम्बत ह,ैै तजसकेतलए आरोप-पत्र जारी तकया जा च का ह.ैै (ग) यतद
आपरातिक आरोप के आिार पर कातमसक के तवरुद्ध अतभयोजन की कायसवाही लतम्बत हैअथासत् न्यायालय में अतभयोजन हत आरोप-प ैे त्र प्रस्त त तकया
जा च का ह,ैै

(3) जहाुं उपरोक्त पररतस्थततयाुं तवद्यमान न हों, वहाुं प्रत्येक मामलेमेंचयन सतमतत की सुंस्त ततयों के सक्षम स्तर सेअन मोदनोपरान्त
तनयमान सार, प्रोन्नतत की कायसवाही की जायेगी और जहाुं उपरोक्त पररतस्थततयों के कारण चयन सतमतत की सुंस्त ततयाुं म हरयन्द तलफाफे मेंरखी जायें, वहाुं
म हरबन्द तलफाफे का तनस्तारण अग्रतलतखत नीतत के अन सार तकया जायेगा।

(4) यतद तकसी कातमसक केतवषय मेंचयन सतमतत की सुंस्त तत को म हरबन्द तलफाफेमेंरखा गया हो तो उसके तलए एक पद स रतक्षत रखा
जायेगा तातक उसके तनदोष पायेजानेपर तलफाफे मेंरखी सुंस्त तत के अन सार अथवा यथा-तस्थतत-अग्रतलतखत नीतत केअन सार म हरबन्द तलफाफेमेंरखी सुंस्त तत
पर प नतवसचार केआिार पर चयन सतमतत द्वारा की गयी प नसस्त तत केअन सार (यतद प्रोन्नतत तकयेजानेकी सुंस्त तत या प नसुंस्त तत की गई
हो) उक्त स रतक्षत पद केतवरुद्ध उसे प्रोन्नत तकया जा सके।

म हरबन्द तलफाफे से सम्बतन्ित मामले हत ैे
 स्थान स रतक्षत रखना"

18. Referring the aforesaid, he submits that in fact, three exigencies are provided wherein the
DPC can undertake the sealed cover procedure-first one is that if the employee is under suspension;
secondly that if any disciplinary proceeding is pending for which the charge sheet is issued; and
thirdly that if the charge sheet in a criminal case has been submitted before the Court by the
prosecution.

19. He argued that information of the above conditions/terms are revalent as neither any
inquiry proceeding is pending against the petitioner nor any charge sheet in any criminal
prosecution has been served upon him, and furthermore, no criminal case is pending.

20. In addition, learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the judgment and
order rendered in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Doly Loyi, reported in 2024 SCC
Online SC 2613, and has referred to paragraphs 9 and 14 of the judgment, which are quoted
hereinbelow:-
1606 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"9. Shri Wasim Qadri, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants drew the
Court's attention towards the Office Memorandum (in short OM) dated 14 September, 1992 dealing
with the Promotion of Government servants against whom disciplinary/court proceedings are
rending or whose conduct is under investigation Procedure and guidelines to be followed the
extract of the OM dated 14th September 1992 relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants
is reproduced below-

2. At the time of consideration of the cases of Government servant for promotion details of
Government servant in the consideration zone for promotion falling under the following category
should be specifically brought to the notice of the Departmental Promotion Committee -

I) Government servants under suspension.

II) Government servants in respect of whom, a charge sheet has been issued and the
disciplinary proceedings are pending, and

III) Government servants in respect of whom prosecution for criminal charge is pending.

2.1. The Departmental Promotion Committee shall assess the suitability of Government
servants coming within the purview of the circumstances mentioned above along with other eligible
candidates without taking into consideration the case/criminal prosecution pending The disciplinary
assessment of the DPC including "unfit for promotion and the grading awarded by it will be kept in
a seated cover. The cover will be superscribed 'Findings regarding suitability for promotion to the
grade/post of of Shri. in respect (name of the Government servant). Not to be opened till the
termination of the disciplinary case/criminal prosecution against Shri... The proceeding of the DPC
need only contain the note. The findings are contained in the attached sealed cover' The authority
competent to fill the vacancy should be separately advised to fill the vacancy in the higher grade
only in an officiating capacity when the findings of the DPC in respect of the suitability of a
Government servant for his promotion are kept in a sealed cover."

(emphasis supplied)

24. Considering the above position, the disciplinary/criminal proceedings can be said to be
initiated against the employee only when a charge memo is issued to the employee in a disciplinary
proceeding or a charge-sheet for a criminal prosecution is filed in the competent Court. The sealed
cover procedure is to be resorted to only after issuance of the charge-memo/charge-sheet is issued.
The pendency of investigation and grant of prosecution saction will not be sufficient to enable the
authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure."

21. Referring to the aforesaid, he submitted that it has been held by the Apex Court that
prosecution is not sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure.

22. Concluding the argument, he submits that the order impugned by which the claim of the
petitioner for promotion has been rejected, is erroneous and ambiguous and, therefore, the same
may be quashed.
4 All. Braham Singh Vs. UCO Bank & Anr.
1607

23. Per contra, Mr. Brijendra Singh, learned counsel for the State, has opposed the aforesaid
contentions and submitted that, in the complaint dated 13.8.2014, moved by one Tarun, there are
serious allegations against the petitioner as the petitioner retains a lot of cash as well as the
movable and immovable properties, which were not brought to the notice of the department, which,
in fact, is in violation of Rules 24(1) and (2) of the Conduct Rules, 1956. He further submitted that,
for the institution of criminal proceedings, prosecution sanction was granted as per office memo
dated 18.11.2022, and the criminal prosecution was pending against the petitioner, as on
10.10.2023, with the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Meerut. He argued that, on the application of
the petitioner dated 16.4.2025, it was put up before the DPC, which was convened on 9.5.2025, for
pending the sealed cover proceeding, but after discussion, it was found that the criminal case under
the Anti-Corruption Act was pending against the petitioner, and therefore, the order dated
12.6.2025, has rightly been passed by the competent authority.

24. In support of his contention, he has also drawn attention towards paragraph 6 of the
judgment and order of K.V. Jankiraman (supra) and paragraph 17 of Doly Loyi (supra). Para 17 of
Dly Loyi (supra), which is quoted herein under:-

"17. He further drew the Court's attention to clause (iii) of Para No. 2 of OM dated 12th
January, 1988 as per which the sealed cove. procedure could be adopted with regard to a
Government servant in respect of whom the prosecution for a criminal charge was pending or
sanction for prosecution had been issued or a decision had been taken to accord sanction for
prosecution. The relevant para of OM dated 12th January, 1988 is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"Cases of Government Servants to whom Sealed Cover Procedure will be applicable

2. At the time of consideration of the cases of Government servants for promotion, details of
Government servants in the consideration zone for promotion falling under the following categories
should be specifically brought to the notice of the Departmental Promotion Committee -

(i) Government servants under suspension.

(ii) Government servants in respect of whom disciplinary proceedings are pending or a
decision has been taken to Initiate disciplinary proceedings.

(iii) Government servants in respect of whom prosecution for a criminal charge is pending or
sanction for prosecution has been issued or a decision has been taken for to accord sanction for
prosecution.

(iv) Government servants against whom an investigation on serious allegations of corruption,
bribery or similar grave misconduct is in progress either by the CBI or any other agency,
departmental or otherwise."

(emphasis supplied)"
1608 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

25. He submits that the sealed cover procedure could be adopted with regard to such
Government Servant, in respect of whom, prosecution for criminal charges are pending, or sanction
for prosecution has been issued, or a decision is taken to accord sanction for prosecution, therefore,
submission is that there is no merit in the writ petition, thus, it is liable to be dismissed.

26. Upon considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, and after perusal
of the record, it transpires that the petitioner was initially appointed in the year 2002 and
subsequently, he was promoted to Manager Grade II, in the year 2008 and Manager Grade I, in the
year 2014, but on 13.8.2014, a complaint was made against the petitioner, which proceeded, and
the inquiry proceeding was concluded. In the meantime, the State promulgated Rules 2018,
wherein the State was made the appointing authority, in respect of the petitioner and, therefore, a
further inquiry was instituted and the charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner, but in the
meantime, the DPC was convened, on 24.12.2020, and observing that the disciplinary proceeding is
pending against the petitioner, the sealed cover procedure has been adopted, by the DPC.

27. As is evident from the counter affidavit of the State, the second set of reason, given for
adopting the sealed cover proceeding, is the pendency of the criminal proceedings against the
petitioner. From paragraph 5 thereof, it is evident that the sanction for criminal prosecution was
accorded, vide office memo dated 18.11.2022, and thereafter, the charge-sheet was submitted on
10.10.2023.

28. This Court examines the aforesaid two main grounds taken while passing the order
impugned herein. First, from the disciplinary proceedings instituted against the petitioner, it reveals
that when the DPC was convened on 24.12.2020, the inquiry report was in motion, wherein the
inquiry officer found that the charges were not proved against the petitioner. Herein, the question
which is to be replied is that, in the inquiry report, if it is found that the charges are not proved,
whether it can be said that no disciplinary proceeding is pending against an employee? The law is
very clear on this point that it is not the pendency of the inquiry proceeding, but the pendency of
the disciplinary proceeding, which is to be considered, while considering the provisions of clauses
(2) and (3) of the Government Order dated 28.5.1997. The same clearly speaks about the pendency
of 'disciplinary proceedings', and therefore, if the inquiry officer reaches to the conclusion that no
charges are proved against an employee, that does not mean that no disciplinary proceeding is
pending against such an employee. Therefore, this Court finds that the DPC, which was convened
on 24.12.2020, has rightly resorted to the procedure of sealed cover. The fact remains that the
inquiry proceeding, which was instituted by the State Government, has been concluded, and the
petitioner was awarded the punishment of 'Censure', though at a subsequent stage, i.e., on
11.4.2025, the State Government canceled the punishment of censure awarded on 25.1.2022. Thus,
it is abundantly clear that no departmental proceeding is pending against the petitioner as of now.

29. Coming to the second issue, which, in fact, is in the way of opening of the sealed cover, is
that the criminal proceedings are pending against the petitioner. The counter-affidavit filed by the
State Government reveals that the prosecution sanction was granted, on 18.11.2022, and the charge
sheet was submitted on 10.10.2023. Admittedly, the DPC for promotion of the Senior Manager
(Civil) was held on 24.12.2020, and till that period of time, no criminal proceeding was initiated.
The question is that when would the pendency of criminal proceedings be said to become effective?
4 All. Braham Singh Vs. UCO Bank & Anr.
1609
Clause 2(c) of the Government Order dated 28.5.1997, is abundantly clear that once the charge
sheet is submitted in the court, by the prosecution, that would be the date, which will be considered
for the pendency of criminal proceedings.

30. This issue has exhaustively been dealt with, in the judgment and order rendered in the case
of K. V. Jankiraman (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the issue regarding an
analogous provision of the Government Order dated 28.5.1997, has held that sealed cover
procedure can be resorted to only after the charge memo is served upon the concerned official, in
contemplation of the disciplinary proceeding or a charge sheet is filed before the criminal court, in
a criminal proceeding. In the present case, the charge sheet was submitted in a criminal
prosecution, in the court, on 10.10.2023. It is settled law that no sealed cover proceeding could be
undertaken, if, on the date of the DPC, no charge sheet had been issued in the matter of
departmental proceedings, and in a criminal case, the charge sheet had not been submitted before
the court concerned. In the instant case, when the DPC was held, chargesheet was not submitted in
the court, thus, the criminal proceeding cannot be said to be pending.

31. The another question which seeks attention of this Court is whether the pendency of
the matter for sanction of criminal prosecution would have any bearing on consideration of
the promotion of an employee, by the DPC. This issue has candidly been considered, in Doly
Loyi's case (supra), and in paragraph 24, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in so many words,
that the pendency of sanction of criminal prosecution would not suffice to enable the
authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure. So far as the present case is concerned,
though the application for the prosecution's sanction was pending, but the decision was taken
on 18.11.2022, that too after the DPC was convened on 24.12.2020, and therefore, the
sanction of prosecution will not make any difference, for consideration of promotion of an
employee, by the D.P.C. Thus, in the present case, the fact that the sanction of prosecution
was pending, would have no adversarial effect on, for consideration of promotion of the
petitioner.

32. In view of aforementioned submissions and discussions, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the order impugned dated 12.6.2025, goes against, the law laid down in the cases of K.
V. Jankiraman (supra), as well as Doly Loyi (supra). Further, the provisions of Government Order
dated 28.5.1997, has escaped the attention of the authorities for considering the case of the
petitioner, in its right perspective.

33. Resultantly, the order impugned dated 12.6.2025 passed by the respondent no.1, is
unsustainable and the same is hereby quashed.

34. The competent authority is directed to take a fresh decision regarding the promotion of the
petitioner, to the post of Senior Manager (Civil), within a period of eight weeks, from the date a
certified copy of this order is produced before him, in the light of the observations made
hereinabove.

35. The writ petition is allowed accordingly.
----------
1610 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2026) 4 ILRA 1610
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
THE HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Review Application No. 409 of 2024

State of U.P. & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
Smt. Krishna Singh ...Opposite Party

Issue for Consideration
Whether the case of petitioner does not fall under the Government Order dated 11.4.2020 and as such the
competent authority has rightly considered and negated the claim of the petitioner. And if the order in
question is not reviewed, heavy financial burden will be fastened upon the State exchequer, which would have
very serious financial implications.

Head Notes
The Constitution of India-1950-Article 226; The Code of Civil Procedure-1908- Section 114;
Order 47- That on one hand the State Government has complied with the Writ Court order in
Smt. Champa Devi and accorded financial benefit to her and on the other hand they had
challenged the Writ Court order in Smt. Champa Devi before the Supreme Court with inordinate
delay on 24.4.2026. In such circumstances, no plausible reason to discriminate the petitioner
(Smt. Krishna Singh) from getting her rightful claim and, therefore, no case is made out to
review order dated 02.11.2023 in the instant review application, which has been passed in terms
of Smt. Champa Devi.

The scope and ambit of the review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in reviewing its
own order, is very limited. The review application can be allowed only on (1) discovery of new
and important matter of evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, was not within the
knowledge of the person seeking review, or could not be produced by him at the time when the
order was made, or (2) when some mistake or error on the face of record is found, or (3) on any
analogous ground. Review is not permissible on the ground that the decision was erroneous on
merits as the same would be the province of an Appellate Court.

Held- Each and every aspect of the matter has been considered and thereafter, the writ petition in question
was disposed of and there appears no apparent mistake in the judgment under review.