Patna High Court
Jagannath PrasadversusThe Patliputra University
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
Promotion cannot be withheld unless disciplinary or criminal proceedings have reached the charge‑memo/charge‑sheet stage, and the university must consider the petitioner’s promotion.
Summary
The petitioner, a senior academic, was appointed as Lecturer and later promoted to Reader, eventually serving as Associate Professor at Patliputra University. He became eligible for promotion to Professor, but the university, citing unspecified allegations, formed a three‑men enquiry committee and later relieved him from the post of In‑charge Principal without granting a hearing. The petitioner objected, and the university constituted a fresh committee, yet the promotion was not considered by the Syndicate despite junior colleagues being promoted. The petitioner filed a writ seeking a mandamus directing the university to consider his promotion, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman which limits withholding promotion to cases where a charge‑memo or charge‑sheet has been issued. The High Court held that no disciplinary or criminal proceedings were pending at the relevant stage, so the promotion could not be arbitrarily denied, and ordered the Vice‑Chancellor to constitute a fresh selection committee to decide the promotion within eight weeks. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed in part, directing the university to consider the petitioner’s promotion from the date he became eligible.
Issues considered
- What is the legal position on withholding promotion when no charge‑memo or charge‑sheet has been issued against the employee?
- Whether the university’s enquiry report and relieving order, issued without a hearing, are valid.
- Whether the university must consider the petitioner’s promotion claim despite pending allegations.
- Application of the sealed‑cover procedure in service matters.
Subjects
- promotion
- university service law
- sealed cover procedure
- disciplinary proceedings
- mandamus
- arbitrary action
- writ petition
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12558 of 2025
======================================================
Jagannath Prasad Son of Late Dhupan Prasad Resident of -Maa Jageshwari
Tower, Phase -II Flat no. 302, Kanti Factory Road, Mahatama Gandhi Nagar,
Sampatchak, Patna, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Patliputra University through its Registrar, Patna.
2. The Vice Chancellor, Patliputra University, Patna.
3. The Registrar, Patliputra University, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, Adv.
Mr. Om Prakash Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Sumit Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Swetang Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Adv.
Mr. Shantam Kirti, Adv.
For the PPU : Dr. Anand Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Vijeta Kumari, Adv.
=======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 29-01-2026
Heard Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, learned Advocate for
the petitioner and Dr. Anand Kumar, learned Advocate for
Patliputra University.
2. Briefly stated, the petitioner was initially
appointed on the post of Lecturer under the Magadh University
and subsequently promoted to the post of Reader with effect
from 01.07.2012 vide order contained in Memo No. 675/2016
Patna High Court CWJC No.12558 of 2025 dt.29-01-2026
2/11
dated 06.03.2016 issued under the signature of the Registrar,
Magadh University, Bodh Gaya. Subsequently owing to
bifurcation of Magadh University, services of the petitioner
brought in Patliputra University, which came into existence in
the year 2018 and since then the petitioner has been serving the
succeeding Patliputra University.
3. The petitioner is, at present, working on the post of
Associate Professor, Patliputra University and his promotion to
the post of Professor (History) is due. Irrespective of the fact the
petitioner was eligible for promotion to the post of Professor
and the exercise in this regard was to be carried out, in the
meanwhile on account of certain imputation levelled against the
petitioner, a Three Men Committee comprising of Convener and
two Members was constituted to look into the matter vide Letter
dated 31.01.2025. The petitioner on being aggrieved with the
constitution of the Committee filed an objection before the Vice
Chancellor of the University. On receipt of the objection of the
petitioner, the Vice Chancellor vide its noting dated 04.03.2025
constituted a fresh Committee. But surprisingly the, Three Men
Committee, which had already lost its force because of the
newly constituted Committee, proceeded and submitted its
report dated 11.03.2025.
Patna High Court CWJC No.12558 of 2025 dt.29-01-2026
3/11
4. In the meantime, the 25th Syndicate Meeting was
held on 29.03.2025 and further of the Senate Meeting on
03.04.2025. The Readers and Associate Professors were
promoted to the rank of Professor in the subject of History
under the provision of Career Advancement Scheme 2018. The
aforesaid notification contained in Memo No. PC/PPU/175/25
dated 08.04.2025 and PC/ PPU /176/25 dated 08.04.2025 have
been placed on record as Annexure P/7. Referring to the
aforesaid notification, it is further contended that the persons
junior to the petitioner, who were holding the post of Associate
Professors, like the petitioner, have been promoted to the post of
Professor. However, despite the fact that there was neither any
departmental proceeding nor any FIR was instituted, the claim
of the petitioner was not considered in a complete arbitrary and
illegal manner. This Court is further apprised that based upon
the afore noted enquiry report, submitted that by the earlier
constituted Three Men Committee, the petitioner has also been
relieved from the post of Incharge Principal of Ramkrishna
Dwarika College. However, even before such relieving order,
the petitioner has neither been noticed nor any opportunity of
hearing has been afforded. After the order of relieving, having
been passed, the petitioner has been served with a show cause
Patna High Court CWJC No.12558 of 2025 dt.29-01-2026
4/11
notice directing him to file fresh explanation under Memo No.
R/PPU 712/25 dated 15.05.2025.
5. Initially, the writ petition has been filed seeking
quashing of the enquiry report as well as the relieving order
from the post of Incharge Principal, besides seeking a direction
upon the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for
promotion to the post of Professor (History) from due date,
when he became eligible for promotion. However, before
pressing the writ petition, learned Advocate for the petitioner
submitted that now his relief is only confined to relief No. 1(a.)
which reads as follows:
“1(a.)To issue writ in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents to consider the case of
petitioner for promotion on the post of Professor
(History) from the due date (I.e the date on which
petitioner became eligible for promotion) and
thereafter to grant promotion to petitioner from
such due date as petitioner was duly found fit and
suitable for promotion by the Screening Committee
and was accordingly called to appear in the
interview scheduled on 20.02 2025. The petitioner
duly attended in interview convened by the
selection committee chaired by the Hon'ble Vice
Chancellor but subsequently in the meeting of the
Syndicate convened on 29.03.2025 the case of
petitioner for promotion on the post of
Professor(History) was arbitrarily and unfairly not
considered by syndicate for promotion despite the
fact that petitioner is one of the most eligible and
senior candidates among those who were
considered for promotion by the syndicate. This
Patna High Court CWJC No.12558 of 2025 dt.29-01-2026
5/11
exercise of not considering the case of petitioner
for promotion by syndicate is totally arbitrary
actuated with malafide and is in gross violation of
the settled principles of service jurisprudence
especially when no departmental proceeding is
pending against the petitioner.”
6. To support the relief as noted hereinabove, after
adverting all the contention, learned Advocate for the petitioner
placed heavy reliance on a decision rendered in the case of
Union Of India vs. K.V. Jankiraman [(1991) 4 SCC 109]. It is
submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in no uncertain terms
held that the promotion cannot be withheld merely because of
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. The Court further
emphasized that a departmental proceeding is said to be initiated
with effect from the date of issuance of memo of charge or in a
criminal case when charge sheet has been submitted.
Admittedly, in the case at hand, when the claim of the persons
junior to the petitioner was considered by the Syndicate and the
Senate, there was neither any departmental proceeding nor
criminal case pending against the petitioner.
7. Dr. Anand Kumar, learned Advocate for the
University while refuting the contention of the petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.12558 of 2025 dt.29-01-2026
6/11
submitted that so far the enquiry report is concerned, the
enquiry has been conducted in pursuant to the direction of the
Chancellor of the University. Prima facie, various irregularities
have been found against the petitioner which led to issuance of
show cause. Till enquiry is under process the petitioner has been
relieved from the post of Incharge Principal of the college so
that the enquiry may not be anyhow hampered. It is further
contended that the petitioner appeared for promotion before the
Section Committee on 22.02.2025 for grant of promotion to the
post of Professor and the recommendation of the Selection
Committee has been put in a sealed envelop before the then Vice
Chancellor of the University and all sealed envelopes were kept
before the 25th Syndicate Meeting on 29.03.2025 for their
recommendation. The Syndicate gave their recommendation
except Dr. Abhyanand Singh and the petitioner against whom
there is serious allegation of financial irregularities.
8. It has further been informed that pursuant the
direction of the Hon’ble Governor, the Enquiry Committee has
submitted a report based upon which FIR has also been lodged
against the petitioner for embezzlement of government money.
9. This Court has considered the submissions
advanced by the learned Advocates for the respective parties.
Patna High Court CWJC No.12558 of 2025 dt.29-01-2026
7/11
Before proceeding further it would be apt and proper to
encapsulate paragraph No. 8, 16 and 17 of the decision rendered
by the Apex Court in the case of K.V. Jankiraman (supra),
where in the opinion of this Court will have material bearing
and guide the final decision:
“8. The common questions involved in all these
matters relate to what in service jurisprudence has
come to be known as “sealed cover procedure”.
Concisely stated, the questions are: (1) What is the
date from which it can be said that
disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending
against an employee? (2) What is the course to be
adopted when the employee is held guilty in such
proceedings if the guilt merits punishment other
than that of dismissal? (3) To what benefits an
employee who is completely or partially
exonerated is entitled to and from which date? The
“sealed cover procedure” is adopted when an
employee is due for promotion, increment etc. but
disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending
against him at the relevant time and hence, the
findings of his entitlement to the benefit are kept in
a sealed cover to be opened after the proceedings
in question are over. Hence, the relevance and
importance of the questions.
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 Tribunal
has held that it is only when a charge-memo in a
disciplinary proceedings or a charge-sheet in a
criminal prosecution is issued to the employee that
it can be said that the departmental
proceedings/criminal prosecution is initiated
Patna High Court CWJC No.12558 of 2025 dt.29-01-2026
8/11
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 stage will
not be sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt
the sealed cover procedure. We are in agreement
with the Tribunal on this point. The contention
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
promotion, 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
particularly 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: (ATC p. 196, para 39)
“(1) consideration for promotion, selection grade,
crossing the efficiency bar or higher scale of pay
cannot be withheld merely on the ground of
Patna High Court CWJC No.12558 of 2025 dt.29-01-2026
9/11
pendency of a disciplinary or criminal proceedings
against an official;
(2) ***
(3) ***
(4) the sealed cover procedure can be resorted to
only after a charge memo is served on the
concerned official or the charge-sheet filed before
the criminal court and not before;”
17. 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
10. After going through the afore noted decision
there is no room for doubt that the promotion of a person can
not be withheld merely in the eventualities where
disciplinary/criminal proceeding is/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
11. Now coming to the case at hand, admittedly the
Patna High Court CWJC No.12558 of 2025 dt.29-01-2026
10/11
date on which the claim for promotion to the post of Professor
was considered by the Syndicate of the University, there was
neither any memo of charge nor any charge sheet was
submitted. In fact, even the FIR was not lodged against the
petitioner. This Court also finds substance to the submissions
made by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that after
objection having been filed by the petitioner against the
constitution of the first Committee, the Vice Chancellor has
constituted a fresh Committee on 04.03.2025 as is evident from
notings made on the objection of the petitioner at page-35 of the
writ petition. This Court also finds that subsequent thereto, a
fresh Committee has also been constituted consisting of four
Members vide notification contained in Memo No.
R/PPU/982/25 dated 30.06.2025 requesting it to submit a report
within 45 days. The said Committee has not submitted any
report as yet.
12. In view of the aforesaid facts and the settled
position in law, this Court finds merit in the writ petition to the
extent whereby the petitioner sought a direction upon the
respondent to consider his case for promotion to the post of
Professor from the due date on which he became eligible and/or
his juniors have been promoted. Accordingly, this Court directs
Patna High Court CWJC No.12558 of 2025 dt.29-01-2026
11/11
the Vice Chancellor of the Patliputra University to consider the
claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Professor
with effect from the due date by constituting a fresh Selection
Committee. This exercise must be completed preferably within a
period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a
copy of this order.
13. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent
indicated hereinabove.
(Harish Kumar, J)
Anjani/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 04 .02.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…