Holding

A decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings is taken when the chargesheet is framed and dispatched (issued), not when it is actually served, so the sealed‑cover procedure applies even if service is delayed.

Summary

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) framed a chargesheet against Executive Engineer H.C. Khurana on 11 July 1990 and dispatched it on 13 July, but personal service was delayed until 25 January 1991 due to his medical leave. The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) met on 28 November 1990 and, invoking the "sealed cover" procedure, kept Khurana's promotion pending the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings. Khurana filed a writ petition seeking mandatory promotion, and the Delhi High Court allowed it, holding that the disciplinary proceedings had not been initiated until the chargesheet was actually served. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings is deemed taken at the time of framing and issuing the chargesheet, and whether the sealed‑cover procedure could be applied despite the delayed service. Relying on Union of India v. KV. Jankiraman and the relevant Office Memoranda, the Court held that issuance (dispatch) of the chargesheet marks the initiation of disciplinary proceedings, making the sealed‑cover procedure applicable even if service is later. Consequently, the High Court’s order was set aside and the writ petition dismissed.

Issues considered

The legal effect of the timing of issuance versus actual service of a chargesheet on the initiation of disciplinary proceedings.
Whether the sealed cover procedure can be applied by the DPC when a chargesheet has been issued but not yet served.
Whether the Delhi High Court correctly applied the decision in Union of India v. KV. Jankiraman regarding the initiation of disciplinary proceedings.

Subjects

sealed cover proceduredisciplinary proceedingschargesheet issuancegovernment servant promotionDepartmental Promotion Committeeservice of chargesheetmandamus

Judgment

. _.'

\
I
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY A
v..
H.C. KHURANA
.' APRIL 7, 1993

(J.S. VERMA AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.) B

Civil Services.

Civil servanl-;l'romotion-0.M. Nos.-Dated Ja11uary 12, 19sS and
September 14, 1992-Rationale belti11d OMs explained-'Sealed cover proce-
duret...:Applicabi/ity lo government servant~iether actual sen·ice of charge c
sheet nece.•sary.
IL·
/ Wordr and phrases-'lssue of Chargesheet'-Meaning of.

The respondent who was employed as an Executive Engineer In the
DDA-ap~liant was served on 6.11.85 a preliminary memo alleging Ir• D
regularities committed by him in the construction works, and that they
were being investigated. On 11.7.90 a chargesheet was framed on the basis
of these irregularities, and on 13.7.90 the cbargesheet was despatched for
being served on him•. The respondent, however, proceeded on two monihs
medical leave and, therefore, on 17.7.90 another Executive Engineer work- E
log In the same Wing as the respondent, received it and gave intimation
that the respondent was on leave and adding the same would be handed
over to the respondent on his return from leave. · .

A Departmental Promotion Committee met 011 28.11.90, and lo view
of the earlier decision to Initiate disciplinary proceedings against the F
respondent, It followed the 'sealed cover procedure' In the case of the
respondent. . ·

Efforts to effect personal service of the chargesheet on the resjloli·
dent iln account of his non-availabiiity continued and the same could be G
served personally on him only on 25.1.91. As a result of the selection made
by the D.P.C. certain persons were promoted lo the post of Superintending
· - Engineer, while the respondent's ·matter was kept in abeyance to await tlie
result of the disciplinary proceedings.
•
The respondent filed a 1ttit petition In the High Court for a writ of ' H
1033
1034 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] 2 S.C.R.

A mandamu~ directing the DDA to promote him as Superintending En·
gineer with effect from the date on which his juniors had been promoted
to the said post on the basis of the selection by the D.P.C.

The High Court allowed the writ petition relying on Union of India
and Others v. KV. Jankiraman and Others, (1991] 4 SCC 109, and taking
B the view that the framing of charge would carry with it the duty to issue
and serve the same on the employee, that there was no justification for the
DDA to follow the sealed cover procedure in this case on 28.11.91 when the
Departmental Promotion Committee met since actual service of the char·
gesheet was made only after the date on which the D.P.C. met. Accordingly,
C the High Court directed the DDA to open the sealed cover, and to promote
the respondent as Superintending Engineer if otherwise found suitable by
the D.P.C., and to give him seniority and all consequential benefits from
the date on which his juniors were so promoted.

The DDA-appellant challenged the aforesaid, decision by special
D leave in this Court, and contended that Jankiraman eannot be read to hold,
in a case like the present one where the disciplitlary proceedings have been
initiated by framing the chargesheet and despatching the same that the
chargesheet had not been issued and, therefore, the sealed cover proce-
dure could not be followed by the D.P.C. on 28.11.90. On behalf of the
E respondent official it was urged that Jankiraman holds that withont effec·
tive service of the chargesheet on the employee the disciplinary proceed·
ings cannot be said to have been initiated, and reliance was also placed on
the Office Memorandum dated 12.1.88 which required actual service and
not mere issuance of the chargesheet for initiating the disciplinary
proceedings.
F
Allowing the appeal, and setting aside the judgment of the High
Court, this Court,

HELD : 1. The 'sealed cover' procedure is applicable, in cases where
G !he. 'disciplinary proceedings are. pending' in respect of the government
servant; or 'a decision bas been taken to initiate disciplinary proceedings'.
Thus, on a decision being taken to initiate disciplinary proceedings, the
guidelines contained in OMs dated 14.9.92 and 12.1.88 attract the sealed
cover procedure. [1040-D]

oH .~ 2. The decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings cannot be sub·
"
• D.D.A .-. H.C. KHURANA 1035

sequent to the issuance of the chargesheet, since issue of the chargesheet A
is a consequence of the decision to initiate disciplinary pr0ceedings. The
service of the chargesheet on the government servant follows the decision
to initiate disciplinary proceedings, and it does not precede or coincide
~
with that decision. The delay, if any, if service of the chargesheet to the
government servant, after it has been framed and despatched, does not
have the effect of delaying initiation of the disciplinary proceedings, inas-
B

- much as information to the government servant of the charges framed
against him, by service of the chargesheet, is not a part of the decision
making
. process of the. authorities for initiating the disciplinary proceed-
ings. (1041 8-D)
c
• 3. The plain meaning of the expression 'a decision has been taken to
initiate disciplinary proceedings' used in clause (ii) of para 2 of O.M.
dated 12.1.88, also promotes the object of the provision. The expression
refers merely to the decision of the authority, and knowledge of the
government servant, thereof, does not form a part of that decision. The
'
' ' . . . .
change made in clause (ii) of para 2 in O.M. dated 14.9.92, merely clarifies
D
this position by using the expression 'chargesheet has been issued' to
iadicate that service of chargesheet is not necessary; and issue of the
'-,£ chargesheet by its despatch indicates beyond doubt that the decision to
initiate disciplinary proceedings was taken. Jankiraman takes ~he same
view, and it is not possible to read that decision otherwise. (1041 E-F) E

- 4. The decision in Ja11kiran1an is based, interalia, on O.M. dated
12/1/88. The facts of the cases dealt with in the decision in Jankiraman do

,. not indicate that the court took the view, that even though the chargesheet
against the government servant was framed and direction given to
despatch the same to the government servant as a result of the decision to
F
initiate disciplinary proceedings taken prior to the meeting of the D.P.C.,
that was not sufficient to attract the sealed cover procedure merely be-
cause service of the chargesheet was effected subsequent to the meeting of
the D.P.C. (1041-H, 1042-A)
G
1" 5. 'Issue' of the chargesheet in the context of a decision taken to
initiate the disciplinary proceedings must mean, as it does, the framing of
the chargesheet and taking of the necessary action to despatch the char·
gesbeet to the employee to inform him of the charges framed against him
requiring his explanation; and not also the further fact of service of the H
i

1036 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) 2 S.C.R.
~

A chargesheet on the employee. It is so, because knowledge to the employee
of the charges framed against him, on the basis of the decision taken to
initiate disciplinary proceedings, does not form a part of the decision
making process of the authorities to initiate the disciplinary proceedings, ,l
even if framing the charges forms a part of that process in certain
situations. (1043 E-F]
B
6. The meaning of the word 'issued' bas to be gathered from the
context in Which it is used. The issue or a cbargesheet, therefore, means
its despatch t«i the government servant, and this act is complete the
-
moment steps are taken for the purpose, by framing the chargesheet and
c despatching it to the government servant, the further fact of its actual
service on the government ~ervant not being a necessary part of its ~
requirement. This is the sense in which the word 'issue' was used in the
expression 'chargesheet bas already been issued to the employees', in para
17 of-the decision in Jankiraman. (1044 8-C]

D 7. The decision to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against the
respondent had been taken and chargesheet had also been issued. to the
respondent prior to 28.11.90 when the D.P.C. adopted the sealed cover
procedure. It cannot be held otherwise merely because service of the .)(•
chargesheet framed and issued earlier could be effected on the respondent
after 28.ll.90, on account of the absence of the respondent. [1044-D)
E
Union of India and Others v. KV. Jankiraman and Others, (1991) 4
SCC 109, referred to and relied on. (1037-G) -
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1240 of
F 1993. T
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.2.1992 of the Delhi High
Court in C.W.P. No. 877 of 1991.

Aron Jaitley, Ms. Ayesha Khatri and Ms. Indu Malhotra (NP) for
G the Appellant.
P.P. Khurana and Arun K. Sinha for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

H VERMA, J. The respondent, H.C. Khurana, was employed as Execu
D.D.A v. H.C. KHURANA [VERMA, J.] 1037

tive Engineer in the Delhi Development Authority (D.DA.). A preliminary A
memo was served on the respondent on 6.11.1985, alleging some ir-
regularities by him in the construction works, and they were being inves-
tigated. A chargesheet was framed on 11.7.1990 against the respondent on
the basis of irregularities in the constructions made in a housing colony.
On 13.7.1990, the chargesheet was despatched for being served on the B
respondent. However, the respondent proceeded on two months' medical
leave and, therefore, on 17.7.1990 another Executive Engineer R.K. Sood,
working in the same Wing as the respondent, received it and gave the
intimation that the respondent was on leave, adding that the same would
be handed over to the respondent on his return from leave. On 28.11.1990,
the Departmental Promotion Committee (D.P.C.) met, and in view of the C
earlier decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the respondent,
it followed the 'sealed cover procedure' in the case of respondent. It
· appears, that the effort to effect personal service of the chargesheet on the
respondent on account of his non-availability continued, and the same
could be served personally on the respondent only on 25.1.1991. As a result D
of the selection made by the D.P.C., certain persons were promoted to the
post of Superintending Engineer, while the respondent's matter was kept
in abeyance to await the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings.

In these circumstances, the respondent filed Writ Petition NOf 877 of
1991 in the Delhi High Court claiming a mandamus directing the D.D.A. E
to promote him as Superintending Engineer with effect from the date on
which his juniors had been promoted to the post of Superintending Engin-
ner, on the basis of selection made by the D.P.C. The High Court has
allowed that writ petition taking the view, that 'the framing of charge would
carry with it the duty to issue and serve the same on the empl"yee, there F
was no justification for the respondent to follow the sealed cover procedure
in this case on 28.11.1991 when the Departmental Promotion Committee
met', since actual s~e of the chargesheet on the respondent was made
only after the date .qp· which the D.P.C. met. According to the High Court,
issuance of the chargesheet to the employee means its actual service on
him, and this should be complete before following the sealed cover proce- G
dure. The High Court has read U11io11 of India and Others v. KV.
fa11kira111a11 and Others, [1991] 4 SCC 109, to this effect, for taking the view,
that on these facts, the disciplinary proceedings cannot be said to have.
been initiated prior to 29.11.1990, when the D.P:C. followed the sealed
cover procedure. Accordingly, the High Court has directed the D.D.A. to H
1038 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) 2 S.C.R.

A open the sealed cover; to promote the respondent as Superintending
Engineer, if he has been otherwise found suitabie by the D.P.C.; and, in
that. event, lo give him seniority with all consequential benefits from the
date 011 which his juniors were so promoted. The judgment of the High
Court is challenged by special leave, in this appeal.

B The short question for consideration, is: Whether, in the present
case, the High Court has correctly applied the decision in Jankiraman?
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that Jankiraman cannot be
read to hold, in a case like the present, where the disciplinary proceedings
had been initiated by framing the chargesheet and despatching the same,
C that the chargesheet had not been issued; and, theref.ore, the 'sealed cover
procedure' could not be followed by the D.P.C. on 28.11.1990. On the other
hand, learned .counsel for the respondent strenuously urged that i
Jankiraman holds that without effective service of the chargesheet on the
employee, the disciplinary proceedings cannot be said to have been in-
D itiated against him. Learned counsel for the respondent referred to the
Office Memo~andum No. 2201114/91-Estt. (A) dated 14.9.1992 of the
Department of Personnel & · Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public
Grievanet;s and Pensions, Government of India, issued in supersession of
the earlier. Office Memorandum No. 22011J2/86- Estt. (A) dated 12.1.1988,
. E consequent upon the judgment in Jankiraman, to support his submission
that even though mere issuance or despatch of a chargesheet without the
further requirement of its actual service on the employee would now be
sufficient according to the O.M. dated 14.9.1992 for following the sealed
cover procedure, yet the same was not sufficient earlier according to the
O.M. dated 12.1.1988, which required actual service and not mere issuance
F of the chargesheet for initiating the disciplinary proceedings. Admittedly, "'(
the guidelines in the O.M. dated 12.1.1988 were in force, in the present
case. The subject of the two memoranda, containing the guidelines, is the
same, as under:

G 'Promotion of Government servants against whom dis-
ciplinary/court proceedings are pending or whose Con-
duct is under investigation - P,foeedure and guidelines to
be followed.'

H (emphasis supplied)
D.D.A. v. H.c. KHURANA (VERMA, J.)" 1039

Para 2 is the relevant portion in these memoranda. In O.M. daled A
12.1.1988, para 2 is as under :-

'Cases of Government Servants~to whom Sealed Cover
Procedure will ~ applicable.

2. At the time of consideration of the cases of Govern· B
ment servants for promotion, details of Government ser·
vants in the consideration zone for promotion falling
under the following categories should be specifically
brought to the notice of the Departmental Promoiion
Committee :-
c
(i) Government servants under suspension;

(ii) Government servants in respect of whom discipli·
nary proceedings are pending or a decision has been taken
to initiate disciplinary proceedings;
D
(iii) Government servants in respect of whom prosecu·
tion for a criminal charge is pending or sanction for
prosecution has been issued or a decision has been taken
to accord sanction for prosecution.

(iv) Government servants against whom an investiga·
E

-- tion 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) F

The substituted clause (ii) in para 2, in O.M. dated 14.9.1992, is as
under:·

'(ii) Government servants in respect of whom a Char·
gesheet has been issued and the disciplinary proceedings G
are pending; and"

(emphasis supplied)

. It is the change made in clause (ii) of para 2 in the O.M. dated
14.9.1992, from which learned counsel for the respondent tried to find H
1040 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) 2 S.C.R. '
A support for his submission.

Before we refer to Jnnkiraman, we may advert to clause (ii) of para
2 of O.M. dated 12.1.1988 which was the guideline applicable at the )_
material time, in the present case, and is as under :-

B "(ii) Government servants in resped of whom discipli-
nary proceedings are pending or a decision has been taken
to initiate disciplinary proceedings;"
__...r

c
(emphasis supplied)

These words clearly indicate that the scaled cover procedure was
applicable, in cases where the 'disciplinary proceedings are pending' in
. Jo:

resp~ct of the government servant; or a decision has been taken to initiate
disciplinary proceedings'. Thus, on a decision being taken to initiate discipli-
D nary proceedings, the guidelines attract the sealed cover procedure. The
reason is obvious. Where a decision has been taken to initiate the discipli-
nary proceedings against a government servant, his promotion, even if he
is found otherwise suitable, would be incongruous, because a government
)(
servant under such a cloud should not be promoted till he is cleared of the
allegations against him, into which an inquiry has to be made according to
E the decision taken. In such a situation, the correctness of the allegation
being dependent on the final outcome of the disciplinary proceedings, it
would not be fair to exclude him from consideration for promotion till
conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, even though it would be im-
proper to promote him, if found otherwise suitable, unless exonerated. To
F reconcile these conflicting interests, of the government servant and public
administration, the only fair and just course is, to consider his case for
promotion and to determine if he is otherwise suitable for promotion, and
keep the result in abeyance in sealed cover to be implemented on con-
clusion of the disciplinary proceedings; and in case he is e~onerated
therein, to promote him with all consequential benefits, if found otherwise
G suitable by the Selection Committee. On the other hand, giving him promo- ~
tion after taking the decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings, would be
incongruous and against public policy and principles of good administra-
tion. This is the rationale behind the guideline to follow the sealed cove~
procedure in such cases, to prevent the possibility of any injustice or
H arbitrariness.
D.D.A v. H.C. KHURANA (VERMA, J,] 1041

The question now, is : What is the stage, when it can be said, that 'a A
decision has been taken to initiate disciplinary proceedings'? We have no
doubt that the decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings cannot be
subsequent to the issuance of the chargesheet, since issue of the char-
gesheet is a consequence of the decision to initiate disciplinary proceed-
ings. Framing the chargesheet, is the first step taken for holding the enquiry B

-
into the allegations, on the decision taken to initiate disciplinary proceed-
ings. The chargesheet is framed on the basis of the allegations made against
the government servant; the chargesheet is then served on him to enable
him to give his explanation; if the explanation is satisfactory, the proceed·
ings are closed, otherwise, an enquiry is held into the charges; if the charges
are not proved, the proceedings are closed and the government servant C
exonerated; but if the charges are proved, the penalty follows. Thus, the
service of the chargesheet on the government servant follows the decision
; to initiate disciplinary proceedings, and it does not prei;ede or coincide
with that decision. The delay, if any, in service of the chargesheet to the
government servant, after it has been framed and despatc.lled, does not D
have the effect of delaying ·initiation of the disciplinary pro~eedings, inas-
much as information t" the government servant of the. charges framed
against him, by service of the chargesheet, is not a part of the decision
making process of the authorities for initiating the disciplinary proceedings.

This plain meaning of the expression used in clause (ii) of para 2 of E

- O.M. dated 12.1.1988, also promotes the object of the provision. The
expression refers merely to the decision of the authority, and knowledge of
the government servant, thereof, does not form a part of that decision. The
change made in clause (ii) of para 2 in O.M. dated 14.9.1992, merely
clarifies this position by using the expression 'chargesheet has been issued' F
to -indicate that service of chargesheet is not necessary; and. issue of the
chargesheet by Its despatch indicates beyond doubt that the decision to
initiate disciplinary proceedings was taken. In our opinion, Jankiraman
takes the same view, and it is not possible to read that decision otherwise,
in the manner suggested by learned counsel for the respondent.
G
The decision in Jankiraman is based, inter alia, on O.M. dated
12.1.1988. The facts of the cases dealt with in the decision in Jankiraman
do not indicate that the Court iook the view, that. even though the char-
gesheet against the government servant was framed and direction given to
despatch the same to the government servant as a result of the decision to H
1042 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) 2 S.C.R. -"..
A initiate disciplinary proceedings taken prior to the meeting of the D.P.C.,
that was not sufficient to attract the sealed evver procedure merely because
service of the chargesheet was effected subsequent to the meeting of the
D.P.C. Moreover, in Jankiraman itself, it was stated thus :

"14. To bring the record up to date, it may be pointed
B out that in view of the decision of this Court in Union of
India v. Tejinder Singh, (1991] 4 SCC 129, decided on
September 26, 1986, the Government of India in the Deptt.
of 'Personnel and Training issued another Office
Memor~ndum No.22011/2/86. Estt. (A) dated January 12,

c 1988 in supersession of all the earlier insturctions on the
subject including the Office Memorandum dated January
30, 1982 ..... A further guideline contained in this Memoran-
dum is that the same sealed cover procedure is to be applied
where a government servant is recommended for promotion
by the DPC, but before he is actually promoted, he is either
D placed under suspension or disciplinary proceedings are
taken against him or a decision has been taken to initiate
the proceedings or criminal prosecution is launched or
sanction fo1 such prosecution has been issued or decision
to accord such sanction is taken.
E
10. These differences in the two Memoranda have no
bearing on the questions to be answered."

(emphasis supplied)
(PP. 117-118)
F
Thereafter, in Jankiraman, the conclusions of the Full Bench of the
Tribunal, under consideration, were quoted, and then while restating that the
conclusions ofthe Tribunal cou1d be reconciled, it was further stated, thus:

"rl. There is no doubt that there is a seeming contradiction between
G 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
H
..-·-
the relevant time pending at the stage when charge-memo/charge-shee• has
D.D.A. v. H.C. KHURANA [VERMA, J.] 1043

already been issued to the employee. Thus read, there is no inconsistency in A
the two conclusions.'

(emphasis supplied)
PP. 119)

It will be seen that in Jankirama11 also, emphasis is on the stage when B
'a decision has been taken to initiate the disciplinary proceedings' and it
was further said that 'to deny the said benefit (of promotion), they must

- be at the relevant time pending at the stage when charge-memo/charge-
sheet has already been issued to the employee'. The word 'issued' used in
this context in Jankiraman, it is urged by learned counsel for the respon- C
dent, means service on thr employee. We are unable to read Jankiraman
in this manner. The context in which the word 'issued' has been used,
merely means that the decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings is taken
and translated into action by despatch of the chargesheet leaving no doubt
that the decision bad been taken. The contrary view would defeat the
object by enabling the government servant, if so inclined, to evade service D
and thereby frustrate the decision and get promotion in spite of that
decision. Obviously, the contrary view cannot be taken.

'Issue' of-the chargesheet in the context of a decision taken to initiate
the disciplinary proceedings must mean, as it does, the framing of the E
chargesheet and taking of the necessary action to despatch the cbargesheet
to the employee_ to inform him of the charges framed against him requiring

- his explanation; and not also the further fact of service of the cbargesbeet
on the employee. It is so, because knowledge to the employee of the
charges framed against him, Qn the basis of the decision taken to initiate
disciplinary proceedings, dues not form a part of the decision making F
process of the authorities to initiate the disciplinary proceedings, even if
framing the charges forms a part of that process in certain situations. The
conclusions of the Tribunal quoted at the end of para 16 of the decision
- in Jankiraman which have been accepted thereafter in para 17 in the
manner indicated above, do use the word 'served' in conclusion No.(4), but G
the fact of 'issue' of the chargesheet to the employee is emphasised in para
17 of the.decision. Conclusion No.(4) of the Tribunal has to be deemed to
be accepted in Jankiraman only in this manner.

The meaning of the word 'issued', on which considerable stress was
laid by learned counsel for. the respondent, has to be gathered from the H -
1044 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) 2 S.C.R.
4,
A context in which it is used. Meanings of the word 'issue' given in the Shorter
Oxford English Dictionary include : 'to give exit to; to send forth, or allow
to pass out; to let out; .... to give or send out authoritatively or officially;
to send forth or deal out formally or publicly; to emit, put into circulation'.
The issue of a chargesheet, therefore, means its despatch to the govern-
ment servant, and this act is complete the moment steps are taken for the
B purpose, by framing the chargesheet and despatching it to the government
se..Vant, the further fact of its actual service on the government servant not
.
-
being a necessary part of its requirement. This is the sense in which the
word 'issue' was used in the expression 'chargesheet has already been
issued to the employee', in para 17 of the decision in Jankiraman.
c In view of the above, we are unable to accept the respondent's
contention, which found favour with the High Court, that the decision in
Jankiraman, on the facts in the present case, supports the view that the
decision to initate the disciplinary proceedings had not been taken or the
chargesheet had not been issued to the respondent prior to 28.11.1990,
D when the D.P.C. adopted the sealed cover procedure, merely because
service of the chargesheet framed and issued earlier could be effected on
the respondent after 28.11.1990, on account of his absence.

Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High
Court Is set aside, with the result that the writ petition 01 the respondent )r
E stands dismissed. No costs.

N.V.K. Appeal ailowed.

\