Union Of India & Another vs Ashiquzzaman ....... Opp. Party on 12 November, 2025

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Union Of India & Another vs Ashiquzzaman ....... Opp. Party on 12 November, 2025

Bench: S.K. Sahoo

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.28732 of 2025

An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India
-------------------------

Union of India & another ....... Petitioners

-Versus-

Ashiquzzaman ....... Opp. Party

For Petitioners: - Mr. Alok Kumar Mohanty,
S.P.C

For Opp. Party: - Mr. Jagamohan Pattanaik,
Advocate being assisted by
Mr. J.R. Behera, Advocate

-------------------------

P R E S E N T:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing: 31.10.2025 Date of Order: 12.11.2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

S. S. Mishra, J: This writ petition has been filed by

the petitioners assailing the order dated 07.04.2025

passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal,

Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, in O.A. No. 260/00077 of

Page 1 of 15
2020, whereby the Tribunal allowed the Original

Application filed by the opposite party, Ashiquzzaman,

an officer of the Indian Revenue Service (Customs &

Central Excise, 2009 Batch), and directed the

petitioners to act upon the recommendations of the

Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) held on

31.12.2018 and to promote the opposite party to the

post of Joint Commissioner with effect from

23.01.2019, the date on which the suspension order of

the opposite party was revoked pursuant to the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court although all

the juniors were promoted to the said post with effect

from 01.01.2019 and also directed to give all the

consequential benefits arising therefrom.

2. Mr. Alok Kumar Mohanty, learned Special

Panel Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.

Jagamohan Pattanaik, learned counsel appearing for

the opposite party, have been heard in extenso.

3. The facts giving rise to the present writ

petition are that the opposite party, Ashiquzzaman,

Page 2 of 15
aged 39 years, an officer of the Indian Revenue

Service, was serving as Deputy Commissioner, CGST

and Central Excise, Rourkela Commissionerate. He was

placed under suspension vide order dated 25.10.2018

issued by the competent authority, in contemplation of

disciplinary proceedings. The said suspension was

periodically reviewed and allowed to continue.

4. While the opposite party was under

suspension, the Departmental Promotion Committee

(DPC) convened on 31.12.2018 to consider the cases of

eligible officers of the 2009 Batch for promotion to the

post of Joint Commissioner. However, in terms of the

DoP&T Office Memorandum dated 14.09.1992, since

the applicant was under suspension at that time, the

DPC decided to keep his case in sealed cover, while the

names of his batchmates and juniors were

recommended and they were promoted vide order

dated 01.01.2019.

5. Subsequently, pursuant to an order of the

Tribunal (as upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court), the

Page 3 of 15
suspension of the opposite party was revoked with

effect from 22.07.2019 vide order dated 08.03.2021.

Meanwhile, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)

registered an FIR against him on 08.01.2020, and

sanction for prosecution under Section 19(1)(a) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was granted on

10.11.2023. Thereafter, a charge-sheet under Rule 14

of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, was issued on

05.11.2024 to the opposite party.

6. The opposite party contended before the

Tribunal that as on 31.12.2018, the date on which the

DPC was convened, there was neither any criminal case

instituted nor any departmental proceedings pending

against him, and the only ground for applying the

sealed cover procedure was his suspension. Once the

suspension stood revoked on 22.07.2019, the sealed

cover procedure, according to him, stood nullified, and

the respondents were obliged to act upon the DPC's

recommendation and grant him promotion with effect

Page 4 of 15
from 01.01.2019, i.e., the date on which his

batchmates were promoted.

7. The petitioners, on the other hand, opposed

the claim contending that as the opposite party had

been placed under suspension when the DPC was held,

the sealed cover procedure was correctly applied in

terms of DoP&T O.M. dated 14.09.1992. They further

submitted that since criminal prosecution had been

launched subsequently and departmental proceedings

initiated with the issuance of charge-sheet dated

05.11.2024, the sealed cover could not be opened

unless the opposite party was fully exonerated or the

proceedings were dropped, as per the guidelines

contained in DoP&T O.M. dated 02.11.2012. They also

relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, reported in AIR

1991 SC 2010, to contend that an employee has no

vested right to promotion when disciplinary or criminal

proceedings are pending.

Page 5 of 15
8. Upon consideration of the rival contentions

and the materials on record, the Central Administrative

Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, found merit in the claim of the

opposite party. The Tribunal noted that as on the date

of the DPC, 31.12.2018, the opposite party was indeed

under suspension, but no charge-sheet in either

disciplinary or criminal proceedings had been issued

against him. The Tribunal relied upon the authoritative

pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union

of India v. K.V. Jankiraman (supra), which held that

the sealed cover procedure can be resorted to only

after the issue of a charge-memo in a disciplinary

proceeding or a charge-sheet in a criminal case, and

not merely on the basis of pendency of preliminary

investigation or contemplated action.

9. The Tribunal further relied on the decision of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Shri

Doly Loyi, reported in Civil Appeal No. 8387 of

2013, which reiterated that when the charge-sheet is

issued long after the meeting of the DPC, the adoption

Page 6 of 15
of the sealed cover procedure at the earlier stage is

unjustified and unsustainable in law. It also referred to

DoP&T O.M. dated 23.01.2014, which clarifies that for

purposes of review DPCs, an officer who was clear from

vigilance angle on the date of promotion of his junior

cannot be denied promotion on account of subsequent

initiation of proceedings.

10. Applying the above principles, the Tribunal

observed that the revocation of suspension w.e.f.

22.07.2019 and the admitted absence of any

disciplinary or criminal case as on 31.12.2018,

rendered the continuation of the sealed cover

untenable. It held that the respondents' refusal to open

the sealed cover and act upon the DPC

recommendation was contrary to settled law.

11. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the

respondents to act upon the recommendation of the

DPC dated 31.12.2018 and to promote the applicant to

the post of Joint Commissioner with effect from

23.01.2019, the date on which the suspension order of

Page 7 of 15
the applicant was revoked pursuant to the judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court although all the juniors

were promoted to the said post with effect from

01.01.2019 and also directed to give all the

consequential benefits arising therefrom. The Tribunal

further directed that the consequential order be issued

within sixty (60) days from receipt of the copy of the

order.

12. Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Panel Counsel

appearing for the Union of India and others, assailed

the impugned order dated 07.04.2025 passed by the

learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench

in O.A. No. 260/00077 of 2020, primarily on the ground

that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction and

misdirected itself in law in directing the Department to

act upon the recommendation of the Departmental

Promotion Committee (DPC) dated 31.12.2018 which

had been kept in a sealed cover. It was submitted that

the Opposite Party was under suspension as on the

date of the said DPC and was also facing a criminal

Page 8 of 15
investigation by the CBI, which squarely attracted the

sealed cover procedure prescribed in the Office

Memorandum dated 14.09.1992 of the Department of

Personnel and Training (DoP&T). Therefore, the

Tribunal's direction to open and act upon the sealed

cover recommendation was contrary to the settled law

and established procedure.

13. He further contended that mere revocation of

suspension does not entitle an officer to promotion as

of right, particularly when criminal and departmental

proceedings are pending against him. Reliance was

placed on paragraph 3 of the aforesaid Office

Memorandum, which categorically provides that the

sealed cover recommendations can be opened only

upon exoneration of the concerned officer or upon

dropping of the disciplinary or criminal proceedings. In

the present case, far from being exonerated, the

Opposite Party was under active investigation, and

sanction for prosecution had already been accorded by

the competent authority on 10.11.2023, followed by

Page 9 of 15
the issuance of a charge memorandum for major

penalty on 05.11.2024. Hence, the Tribunal's finding

that the case of Doly Loyi v. Union of India, reported

in Civil Appeal No.8387/2013, and the DoP&T Office

Memorandum dated 23.01.2014 would apply to the

present facts was misplaced and legally unsustainable.

14. Mr. Mohanty, further urged that the Hon'ble

Tribunal erred in overlooking the settled principle laid

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India

v. K.V. Jankiraman [(1991) 4 SCC 109], wherein it

has been held that an employee has no vested right to

promotion and that the least that is expected of an

officer being considered for promotion is an

unblemished record of service. It was argued that the

Opposite Party, being under a cloud of serious vigilance

and criminal investigation, could not claim parity with

officers of clean service records, and any direction to

grant him promotion retrospectively would not only

violate administrative discipline but also undermine the

principle of merit and integrity in public service.

Page 10 of 15
15. It was lastly contended that the Tribunal's

direction to open the sealed cover and act upon the

DPC recommendation amounted to pre-judging the

outcome of ongoing disciplinary and criminal

proceedings. The said order, according to the

Petitioners, is contrary to the ratio laid down by the

Apex Court and to the very spirit of the sealed cover

procedure, which aims to maintain administrative purity

pending conclusion of such proceedings. Hence, the

impugned order dated 07.04.2025, being arbitrary,

perverse, and passed in excess of jurisdiction, deserves

to be set aside and the writ petition be allowed.

16. We have carefully examined the rival

submissions and perused the materials on record. The

admitted position is that the DPC convened on

31.12.2018, while the suspension order was in

operation. However, the charge memo in departmental

proceedings and the criminal prosecution came much

later, in 2023 and 2024, respectively.

Page 11 of 15
17. In Union of India v. K.V. Janakiraman

(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court authoritatively

laid down that if DPC is held after the issuance of a

charge memo in departmental proceeding or a charge-

sheet in criminal case, sealed cover procedure could be

employed. Mere pendency of preliminary investigation

or contemplation of proceedings does not give authority

to the department to adapt sealed cover procedure.

18. This view was reiterated in Union of India v.

Doly Loyi (supra), where the Apex Court held that

even where sanction for prosecution existed, unless a

charge-sheet had been filed prior to the DPC, sealed

cover procedure was impermissible.

19. Division Bench of this Court, in a recent

judgment Union of India & Others v. Dr. Ashok

Kumar Panda, reported in W.P.(C) No. 30483 of

2025, while dealing with similar issue in lis akin to

almost identical factual matrix, held that subsequent

initiation of disciplinary or criminal proceedings cannot

retrospectively validate sealed cover adoption, and the

Page 12 of 15
recommendation made by the DPC must be acted upon

if the officer was clear from the vigilance angle on the

date of DPC. The relevant portion of the aforesaid

judgment is extracted herein below for ready reference:

"Learned counsel for the opp. party further
submits that the process of in situ promotion of
the eligible candidates was indeed initiated on
20.05.2022. On that date, a letter was issued to
all in charges of Institutes/Centres functioning
under the Council requiring the eligible Doctors
to submit their work performance report with
supporting documents regarding the completion
of their five years services as on 31.03.2021. On
the same date, the Headquarters forwarded the
names of the candidates/employees, who were
eligible for such in situ promotion for further
verification of their candidature, wherein the
opp. party name appeared at Sl. No.6. After
verification, the revised eligibility list was
circulated on 25.05.2022, wherein the opp.
party name had appeared at Sl. No.4. On
30.05.2022, the opp. party and other candidates
appeared at the interview as per the CCRAS
order dated 20.05.2022. The process initiated
for in situ promotion completed on that date.
Subsequent thereto on 27.06.2022, the charge
sheet was issued to the opp. party under Rule-
14 of CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965. In these factual
backgrounds, learned counsel for the opp. party
has relied upon the judgment of K.V.
Janakiraman (supra) quoted above and submits
that the procedure adopted by the petitioners
was directly against the settled principle of law
because by the time the charge sheet was
issued to the opp. party, the process promotion
was already completed, therefore, the seal cover
procedure ought not to have been opted for.
In that view of the matter, the learned
Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned order
thereby directing the petitioner to open the seal

Page 13 of 15
cover and to act upon the recommendation of
the DAB. Since, the judgment of the learned
Tribunal is purely based on the ratio laid by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.V.
Janakiraman (supra) and the learned Tribunal
has rightly treated the sequence of the event
that had taken place in the present case, we are
not inclined to interfere with the impugned order
of the learned Tribunal."

20. Similarly, the single Bench of this Court in

Nihar Ranjan Choudhury v. State of Odisha &

Another, reported in W.P.(C) No. 21793 of 2021,

observed that the pendency of a contemplated

proceeding cannot be a ground to deny promotion, and

once the employee is exonerated or the suspension

revoked, he is entitled to the benefit of the DPC

recommendation.

21. Applying the aforesaid settled legal principles

to the present case, it is evident that on the date of the

DPC (31.12.2018), the opposite party was not facing

any charge memo or criminal charge-sheet. His

subsequent prosecution sanction and disciplinary

charge memo in 2023 and 2024 cannot operate

retrospectively to deny him his due promotion. The

Page 14 of 15
Tribunal rightly noted that the revocation of suspension

in 2019 obliterated the basis for the sealed cover, and

the respondents were duty-bound to open and act upon

the DPC recommendation.

22. We, therefore, find no illegality or infirmity in

the reasoning or conclusion reached by the learned

Tribunal. The impugned order is in consonance with the

law declared by the Supreme Court and this Court. The

order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack

Bench, Cuttack, dated 07.04.2025 in O.A. No.

260/00077 of 2020 is hereby affirmed.

23. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition

stands dismissed.

..........................

S.S. Mishra, J.

S.K. Sahoo, J. I agree.

................................ S. K. Sahoo, J.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY

Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Orissa High Court, Cuttack Location: High Court of Orissa, The 12th November, 2025/ Subhasis Mohanty Dated Cuttack.

Date: 13-Nov-2025 17:33:51 Page 15 of 15

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Orissa High Court