Allahabad High Court
BACHCHU SINGH AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- PRAKASH PADIA
Holding
Mere pendency of a criminal case cannot be a ground to deny promotion, and the competent authority must consider the petitioner's claim by opening the sealed cover.
Summary
The petitioners, including Bachchu Singh, challenged the denial of their promotion to Head Constable on the ground that their promotion files were kept in sealed cover due to pending criminal proceedings for cheating and forgery. They relied on a prior order (Writ A No.15474 of 2024) and the judgment in Neeraj Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. (2022), which held that mere pendency of a criminal case cannot be a ground to withhold promotion. The Court noted that the Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.V. Janki Raman had already decided the legal issue. After hearing counsel, the Court found the fact undisputed that the petitioners were allowed to continue service despite the pending case and that the competent authority could not indefinitely withhold promotion. Consequently, the Court ordered the competent authority to open the sealed cover and consider the promotion claim within two months, disposing of the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the pendency of a criminal case can be a ground to deny promotion of a police officer whose promotion file is kept in sealed cover.
- Whether the competent authority is bound to open the sealed cover and consider the promotion claim despite pending criminal proceedings.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Subjects
- promotion
- sealed cover
- pending criminal case
- police service
- administrative law
- writ petition
- service matters
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 4651 of 2026
Bachchu Singh And 2 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Nisheeth Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 6
HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.
1. Learned Standing Counsel placed Instructions dated
26.04.2026 before the Court, the same is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Nisheeth Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned Standing Counsel for respondents.
3. It is argued by Sri Nisheeth Yadav, learned counsel for the
petitioner that apart from all the three petitioners, two similarly
situated persons namely Saurabh Sharma and Sachin Sharma
who were not promoted and their results were kept in a sealed
cover due to pendency of criminal case, approached this Court
by filing Writ A No.15474 of 2024 which was finally decided
by this Court vide order dated 18.02.2025. Sri Nisheeth Yadav,
learned counsel for the petitioner argued that pursuant to the
aforesaid order, consequential order has been passed by the
Deputy Police Commissioner, Ghaziabad Commissionerate in
favour of the aforesaid persons on 19.04.2025, copy of the
same is appended at Page 156 of the writ petition. Learned
counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon paragraph
16 & 17 of the judgement and order dated 26.05.2022 passed
by this Court in the Writ A No.8151 of 2022 (Neeraj Kumar
Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others ) which reads as follows:-
16. Learned Standing Counsel representing
respondents has opposed the present writ petition.
WRIA No. 4651 of 2026
2
He submits that case of petitoner for promotion on
the post of Head Constable has been considered but
has been placed in Sealed Cover on account of
pendency of criminal case. The trial of criminal case
has not yet concluded on account of interim order
granted by this Court on the Application U/S 482
Cr.P.C. filed by petitioner himself. Petitioner is a
member of disciplined force. Offence complained of
against petitioner is that of cheating and forgery. As
such, no illegality has been committed in not
opening the Sealed Cover regarding claim of
petitioner.
17. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner,
the learned standing counsel for State-respondents
and upon perusal of record, the Court finds that it is
an undisputed fact that irrespective of pendency of
criminal case, petitioner has been allowed to
continue. Therefore, mere pendency of a criminal
case, prima-facie, cannot be taken as a ground to
deny promotion of petitioner. The Competent
Authority cannot withhold the claim of petitioner
indefinitely on the ground of having adopted Sealed
Cover Procedure, due to the pendency of criminal
case.
4. From perusal of the record, it is clear that legal question
involved in the present case has already been decided by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.V.
Janki Raman, AIR 1991 SC 2010.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned
standing counsel for State-respondents and upon perusal of
record, the Court finds that it is an undisputed fact that
irrespective of pendency of criminal case, petitioner has been
allowed to continue. Therefore, mere pendency of a criminal
case, prima-facie, cannot be taken as a ground to deny
WRIA No. 4651 of 2026
3
promotion of petitioner. The Competent Authority cannot
withhold the claim of petitioner indefinitely on the ground of
having adopted Sealed Cover Procedure, due to the pendency
of criminal case.
6. In view of the discussion made above this writ petition is
disposed of finally with a direction to the Competent Authority
to consider the claim of petitioner for opening the Sealed Cover
within a period of two months from the date of production of a
certified copy of this order in the light of observations made
herein-above.
May 5, 2026
saqlain
(Prakash Padia,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…