Holding

The sealed‑cover procedure cannot be adopted if, on the date the Departmental Promotion Committee considered the officer’s name for promotion, the officer was neither under suspension nor subject to any departmental proceedings; the recommendation must be placed on the select list.

Summary

Dr. Sudha Salhan, an Obstetrician‑Gynecologist appointed in 1979, was considered by a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for promotion to Specialist Grade‑II on 8 March 1989. The DPC’s recommendation was placed in a sealed cover, but she was later suspended on 16 April 1991 and a charge‑sheet issued. She approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) seeking the sealed cover to be opened and retrospective promotion with arrears. The CAT ordered the sealed cover to be opened and directed promotion if the DPC’s recommendation was favorable. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the sealed‑cover procedure cannot be used when, on the date the DPC considered the officer’s name, the officer was not under suspension or any departmental proceedings; therefore the recommendation should have been placed on the select list. Consequently, the Union’s appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the sealed‑cover procedure is permissible when the officer was not under suspension or subject to departmental proceedings at the time his name was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee.
Whether the CAT’s order directing the opening of the sealed cover and retrospective promotion is legally valid.

Subjects

sealed cover proceduredepartmental promotion committeepromotionsuspensionservice lawCentral Administrative Tribunalretrospective promotionarrears of salary

Judgment

A UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
v.
DR. (SMT.) SUDHA SALHAN

JANUARY 7, 1998

B [S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]

Service Law :

Sealed cover procedure-When to be adopted-Held, if on Jhe date on
C which name of a person is considered by Departmental Promotion Committee
for promotion, such person is neither under suspension nor any departmental
proceedings. have been initiated against him and if he is found meritorious
and suitable, his name has to be brought on the select list and ''sealed
cover" procedure cannot be adopted.
D Union of India and Ors. v. K.B. Jankiraman & Ors., [1991] 4 SCC 109,
relied on.

New Bank ofIndia v. N.P. Seghal & Anr., JT (1991) 1SC498, referred
to.
E CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4266of1991.

From the Judgment and Order dated 18.7.91 of the Central Administrative
Tribunal, New Delhi in 0.A. No. 927of1991.

Harish Chandra, (C.V. Subba Rao) (NP) for the Appellants.
F
Surya Kant for the Respondent.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

SAGHIR AHMAD, J. Respondent was appointed to the post of
G Obstetrician and Gynaecologist on 30th July, 1979. She was co~sidered by the
Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion to the post of Specialist Gr.
II, (Senior Scale) in non-teaching Specialist Sub-Cadre on 8th of March 1989,
but the proceedings of the Selection Committee were placed in the sealed 'fl '
cover. On 16th of April 1991, respondent was placed under suspension which
H was followed by a charge sheet issued to her on 8th of May, 1991.
28
-- U.O.l. v. DR. SUDHA SALHAN 29
On 18th of April 1991, the respondent filed an Original Application A
before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, praying
for the following reliefs:

"(a) to direct the respondents open the sealed cover pertaining to the
promotion of the applicant to Specialist Grade-II (Senior scale officers
in non-teaching specialist sub-cadre in pursuance of the B
recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee (D.P.C.)
which met on 8.3.1989;

(b) to direct the respondents that the applicant be promoted
retrospectively from the date of her immediate junior has been promoted
and to pay arrears of salary and allowances, if the DPC has C
recomm.ended in her favour;

I (c) to direct the respondents to give her all consequential benefits like
seniority, fixation of pay etc.;

The Tribunal by its impugned judgment allowed the Original D
Application and directed as under:

"In the result, therefore, we allow the 0.A and direct the respondents
to open the sealed cover pertaining to promotion of the applicant to
specialist Grade-II (Senior Scale officers in non-teaching specialist
sub-cadre) in pursuance o.f the recommendations of the DPC' which E
met on 8.3.1989. Further in case the recommendation of the DPC is in
her favour, we direct, the respondents that the appellant be promoted
retrospectively from the date of her immediate junior had been promoted
and pay the salary and allowances to her. We further direct that she
is entitled to consequential benefits, like seniority and fixation of pay. F
This may be done within a period of two months from the dated of
receipt of a copy of this order".

The Union of India is in appeal before us.

The Tribunal has found it as a fact that on the date on which the
Departmental Promotion Committee met to assess the case of the petitioner, G
she was neither under suspension nor was nay charge sheet issued to her.
The Tribunal, consequently, replying upon its own Full Bench decision as
also a decision of this Court in New Bank of India v. N.P. Seghal & Anr., JT.
(1991) I SC 498, allowed the Original Application and issued the directions
noted above.
H
30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] I S.C.R.

A The question, however, stands concluded by a Three Judge decision of
this Court in Union of India and Ors. v. K.B.Jankiraman & Ors., (1991] 4 SCC
I09, in which the same view has been taken. We are in respectful agreement
with the above decision. We are also of the opinion that if on the date on
which the name of a person is considered by the Departmental Promotion
Committee for promotion to the higher post, such person is neither under
B suspension nor has ariy departmental proceedings been initiated against him,
his n~me, if he is found meritorious and suitable, has to be brought on the
select list and the "s.ealed cover" procedure cannot be adopted. The
recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee can be placed in
a "sealed cover' only if on the date of consideration of the name for promotion,
C the departmental proceedings had been initiated or were pending or onm its
conclusion, final orders had not been passed by the appropriate authority. It
is obvious that if the officer, against whom the departmental proceedings were
initiated, is ultimately exonerated, the sealed cover containing the
recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee would be opened
and the recommendation would be given effect to.
D
The appeal, therefore, has no merits and is dismissed without any order
as to costs.

RP. Appeals dismissed.