Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Dr Ramkrishna Ghosh vs National Institute Of Homeopathy on 19 March, 2026
1 OA 70/2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA BENCH
KOLKATA
O.A. 350/70/2022 Date of Hearing: 22.01.2026
Date of Order: 19.03.2026
Coram : Hon'ble Smt. Urmita Datta (Sen), Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member
Dr. RAMKRISHNA GHOSH, son of Shri Shambhunath Ghosh,
aged about 47 years, residing at Baramaliha Paschimpara,
Maliha, Srikhanda, Ketugram-II, Braddhaman-713150, and
[email protected] presently working to the post of
Lecturer (Surgery) in the National Institute of Homoeopathy,
Government of India, GE Block, Sector-III, Salt Lake, Kolkata-
700106.
....... Applicant.
-versus-
1. UNION OF INDIA service through the Secretary, Ministry of
AYUSH. Homoeopathy Section, Government of India, AYUSH
Bhawan, 'B' Block, GPO Complex, Behind the INA Market, New
Delhi-110023.
2. THE JOINT SECRETARY, Ministry of AYUSH, Homoeopathy
Section, Government of India, AYUSH Bhawan, 'B' Block, GPO
Complex, Behind the INA Market, New Delhi-110023;
3. THE DIRECTOR, National Institute of Homoeopathy,
Government of India, GE Block, Sector-III, Salt Lake, Kolkata-
700106.
4. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, National Institute of Homoeopathy,
Government of India, GE Block, Sector-III, Salt Lake, Kolkata-
700106.
...... Respondents.
Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone=
Dhrubajyoti banerjee
90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal,
SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.03.19 11:59:49+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
2 OA 70/2022
For the Applicant : Mr. P.C. Das, Ms. T. Maity; Counsel
For the Respondents : Mr. S. Paul; Counsel
ORDER
Per Hon'ble Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member :
1. The applicant has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, praying for the following relief(s) highlighting the facts of the case:
"a) To quash and/or set aside the impugned office order dated 12.11.2020 issued by the Director, National Institute of Homoeopathy, Kolkata whereby and whereunder they have rejected the claim of the applicant for upgradation of his ACR/APAR and directed that his case may be kept in the sealed cover due to pending criminal case against him being Annexure A-6 of this original application;
b) To quash and/or set aside the impugned order dated 19th July, 2021 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of AYUSH, Homeopathy Section whereby they have rejected the claim of the applicant for grant of DACP benefit on ad hoc basis by not complying with the office memo dated 14th September, 1992 issued by the DOPT being Annexure A-12 of this original application.
c) To quash and/or set aside the impugned office order dated 31.08.2021 by which the Government of India, Ministry of AYUSH, Homoeopathy Section communicated to the Director, National Institute of Homoeopathy, Kolkata regarding ad hoc promotion of the applicant may be kept in abeyance till the final outcome of the criminal case against the applicant which is clearly against the mandatory office memo dated 14th September, 1992 issued by DOPT being Annexure A-
14 of this original application
d) To quash and/or set aside the impugned communication letter dated 9th December, 2021 issued by the Joint Director, National Institute of Homoeopathy, Kolkata by which your applicant was communicated that because of not sanctioning by the Ministry of AYUSH regarding grant of ad hoc promotion to the post of Associate Professor, the Ministry of AYUSH has directed that the matter may be kept in abeyance till the final outcome of the court case being Annexure A-15 of this original application.
e) To declare that views taken by the Ministry of AYUSH, Government of India, Homoeopathy Section in the impugned office orders dated 12.11.2020 (A-6) 19th July, 2021 (A-12), 31.08.2021 (A-14) and 9th Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.19 11:59:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 3 OA 70/2022 December, 2021 (A-15) are wholly against under paragraph 4 of the office memo dated 14th September, 1992 of the DoP&T and in terms of the said office memo dated 14.09.1992 the applicant is fully entitled for getting ad hoc promotion to the post of Associate Professor in the Grade Pay of Rs. 7600/- in PB-3 with effect from the respective date of his eligibility along with all consequential benefits."
2. Facts as narrated by the applicant are as follows:
The applicant joined the National Institute of Homoeopathy, Kolkata as a Lecturer on 30th September, 2010. On 21.10.2016 an outsider made a complaint against the applicant before the Officer-in-Charge, Bidhannagar Police Station. On the basis of the complaint, the Officer-in-Charge, Bidhannagar Police Station lodged an FIR and proceeded with the case under Section 341/324/506/34 of IPC by FIR dated 21.10.2016. The criminal case is still pending. Applicant did not get the benefit of DACP as well as ad hoc promotion to the post of Associate Professor in the Grade Pay of Rs. 7600/- in PB-3. The applicant made an appeal on 19.10.2021 to the Director, National Institute of Homoeopathy, Kolkata for considering his ad hoc promotion to the post of Associate Professor in terms of the office memo dated 14th September, 1992 but the Director of National Institute of Homoeopathy, Kolkata vide impugned office order dated 12.11.2020 communicated to the applicant that the ad hoc promotion of the applicant to the post of Associate Professor under DACP scheme cannot be considered at this stage and it would be kept in sealed cover due to pendency of the criminal case against the applicant. The applicant again made representations before the Director, National Institute of Homoeopathy, Kolkata on 24.11.2020, 25.01.2021 and 15.06.2021 for giving him ad hoc promotion during pendency of the criminal proceedings against him. After receipt of such representations, the Director, National Institute of Homoeopathy, Kolkata on 7th July, 2021 sought clarification Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.19 11:59:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 4 OA 70/2022 from the Joint Secretary, Ministry of AYUSH, Government of India whether the case of the applicant for grant of ad hoc promotion to the post of Associate Professor can be considered on the basis of the office memo dated 14th September, 1992 of the DoP&T. Director also submitted the Vigilance Clearance along with such office letter dated 7th July, 2021. Ministry of AYUSH did not consider the case of the applicant for his promotion. Hence this O.A.
3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that because of long pending case where there is no progress, applicant did not get the benefit of DACP as well as ad hoc promotion to the post of Associate Professor. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the criminal case which is pending against the applicant is a separate dispute and does not have any connection with any offence relating to the government services of the applicant and such situation demands that under office memo dated 14th September, 1992 of the DOPT, the ad hoc promotion of the applicant can be considered and the applicant is entitled to get the benefit of DACP scheme by getting the promotion to the post of Associate Professor in the Grade Pay of Rs. 7600/- in PB-3. Director of National Institute of Homoeopathy, Kolkata under whom the applicant is functioning, duly recommended the case of the applicant to the Ministry of AYUSH whether the ad hoc promotion of the applicant to the post of Associate Professor in terms of the DACP scheme in view of O.M dated 14.09.1992. Despite such recommendation, Ministry of AYUSH vide impugned office order dated 31.08.2021 communicated to the Director, National Institute of Homoeopathy that ad hoc promotion of the applicant may be kept in abeyance till the final outcome of the criminal case against the applicant. In the office memo dated 14th September, 1992 issued by the DoP&T wherein in paragraph 4 it is clearly stated that - It is necessary to ensure that the disciplinary Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.19 11:59:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 5 OA 70/2022 case/criminal prosecution instituted against any government servant is not unduly prolonged and all efforts to finalize expeditiously the proceedings should be taken so that the need for keeping the case of a Government servant in a sealed cover is limited to the barest minimum. It has, therefore, been decided that the appointing authorities concerned should comprehensively review the case of Government servants, whose suitability for promotion to a higher grade has been kept in a sealed cover on the expiry of 6 months from the date of convening the first Departmental Promotion Committee which had adjudged his suitability and kept its findings in the sealed cover. Such a review should be done subsequently also every six months. The review should, inter alia, cover the progress made in the disciplinary proceedings/criminal prosecution and the further measures to be taken to expedite their completion. In spite of the six monthly review referred to in para 4 above, there may be some cases, where the disciplinary case/criminal prosecution against the Government servant is not concluded even after the expiry of two years from the date of the meeting of the first DPC, which kept its findings in respect of the Government servant in a sealed cover. In such a situation the appointing authority may review the case of the Government servant, provided he is not under suspension, to consider the desirability of giving him ad-hoc promotion keeping in view certain aspects.
Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the case of the applicant is totally covered by office memo dated 14.09.1992 of the DOPT but Ministry of AYUSH misinterpreted the office memo dated 14.09.1992 and withheld the ad hoc promotion of the applicant to the post of Associate Professor. The applicant is entitled to get such ad hoc promotion in terms of the office memo dated 14.09.1992 of the DOPT with effect from the date when he was eligible for the Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.19 11:59:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 6 OA 70/2022 same. Since the Director of NIH, Kolkata also sent the Vigilance Clearance from the department side, therefore there is no bar for the Ministry of AYUSH to approve the ad hoc promotion of the applicant to the post of Associate Professor during the pendency of the criminal court case where there is no nexus of any kind of departmental misconduct and the charge-sheet in the criminal case as well as FIR are not grave in nature enough to warrant continued denial of promotion. The applicant is falsely implicated by an outsider and there is no such nexus in respect of such dispute to the functioning of the applicant in respect of his government job.
4. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that one letter of complaint was filed before the Electronics Complex Police station on 21-11-2016 by one Indranil Mukherjee against this applicant on some allegations for which said police station started a police station case being No. 140 of 2016 under section 341/324/506/34 of I.P. Code and said case was forwarded to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistarte at Bidhan Nagar.
Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the charges against the applicant under section 341/324/506/34 IPC after being registered at Police Station Electronics Complex and said police station after completion of investigation submitted the charge sheet before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistarte at Bidhan Nagar wherein it is pending for trial.
Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that due to the pendency of said criminal case the applicant was not given the DACP and it has remained under sealed cover envelope as per rule. On 19-10-2020 the applicant submitted his appeal for ad-hoc promotion and DACP to the Respondent No.3 stating Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.19 11:59:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 7 OA 70/2022 therein that the criminal case against him is not related to the office and he stated further that the progress of the criminal case is very slow, hence, it will take a long time to get justice from that Court. The applicant referred herein the DOP&T Guideline /order No. 22011/4/91-Estt (A) dated 14-09-1992. Thereafter on 12-11-2020, Respondent No.3 informed the applicant that the APAR of the applicant has been considered but not agreed for up gradation since the APAR of the particular year i.e, 2013-2014 was already considered by the DPC meeting held on 19-07-2018 was kept in the sealed cover due to the pending criminal case against the applicant.
Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that after receiving a number of representations from the applicant, respondent No.3 issued a letter to the Respondent No.2 on 07-07-2021 drawing the attention of the respondent No.2 to DOPT O.M. dated 14.09.1992 for a review of the case of the applicant as he was not under suspension and further to consider his desirability for giving him ad-hoc promotion keeping in view the fact whether the promotion of the officer will be against the public interest.
Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that in reply to the said letter dated 07-07-2021 the respondent No.3 was asked by the Ministry of Ayush vide letter dated 19-07-2021 regarding the current status of the criminal case against the applicant. Respondent No.3 then informed Ministry of Ayush as well as respondent No.2 on 18-08-2021 about the current status of the case of the applicant and further requested for review of the case of the applicant to decide whether or not it would be against public interest to grant DACP on ad hoc basis to the applicant.
Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.19 11:59:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 8 OA 70/2022 Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that in reply of the said letter dated 18-08-2021 Ministry of Ayush vide letter dated 31-08-2021 intimated that the proposal for granting financial up gradation under DACP Scheme on Ad-hoc basis to this applicant against whom criminal case is pending is not in accordance with the extant guideline of DOP&T and he is not cleared from the vigilance angle as per the DOP&T Guideline /order No. 22034/4/2012-Estt (D) dated 02-11-2012, hence, the matter may be kept in abeyance till the final outcome of the Criminal Case. Thereafter, National Institute of Homoeopathy (N.I.H) issued a letter dated 09-12-2021 intimating the applicant stating therein that the proposal for granting financial up gradation under DACP Scheme on Ad-hoc basis to this applicant has not been sanctioned by the Ministry of Ayush and further communicated that the Ministry has further directed that the matter may be kept in abeyance till the final outcome of the Criminal Court Case.
Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that DOP&T Guideline /O.M No. 22011/4/91-Estt (A) dated 14-09-1992 which the applicant is relying upon in Para 4 highlights the need to ensure that the disciplinary proceeding/ Criminal prosecution initiated against any government servant is not unduly prolonged and all efforts to finalise the proceeding expeditiously should be taken so that the need for keeping the case of a Government servant in a sealed cover is limited to the barest minimum. It is therefore been decided that the appointing authority should keep it in a sealed cover and in such a situation the appointing authority may review the case of the Government servant, provided that he is not under suspension, to consider the desirability of giving him ad-hoc promotion keeping in view of the fact that the promotion of the said officer will be against the public interest or not and whether there is any likelihood of misuse of official position Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.19 11:59:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 9 OA 70/2022 which the Government servant may occupy after adhoc promotion, which may adversely affect the conduct of the departmental case/criminal prosecution.
Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that Paragraph 5.1 of the said O.M says that in case appointing authority comes to a conclusion that it would not be against the public interest to allow ad-hoc promotion to the Government servant, his case should be placed before the next DPC in the normal course after the expiry of the two year period to decide whether the officer is suitable for promotion on ad-hoc basis. DOP&T Guideline/ O.M No. 22034/4/2012-Estt (D) dated 02-11-2012 is required to be discussed herein as follows:-
"8. As regards the stage when prosecution for a criminal charge can be stated to be pending, the said O.M. dated 14.9.92 does not specify the same and hence the definition of pendency of judicial proceedings in criminal cases given in Rule 9 (6)(b)(i) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 is adopted for the purpose.
The Rule 9 (6)(b)(i) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 provides as under: "(b) judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted -(i) in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which the complaint or report of a Police Officer, of which the Magistrate takes cognizance, is made".
9. For the purpose of vigilance clearance for review DPC, instructions exist in O.M. No. 22011/2/99-Estt.(A) dated 21.11.2002 that review DPC will take into consideration the circumstances obtaining at the time of original DPC and any subsequent situation arising thereafter will not stand in the way of vigilance clearance for review DPC. However, before the officer is actually promoted it needs to be ensured that he / she is clear from vigilance angle Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.19 11:59:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 10 OA 70/2022 and the provision of para 7 of O.M. No. 22011 /4/91-Estt. (A) dated 14.09.1992 are not attracted.
10. Opening of sealed cover on conclusion of proceedings, is covered in the instructions in para 3 of the O.M. dated 14.9.92. In cases where by the time the Departmental Proceedings are concluded and the officer is fully exonerated but another charge sheet has been issued, the second charge sheet will not come in the way of opening of sealed cover and granting promotion notionally from the date of promotion of the junior and para 7 of O.M. dated 14.9.92 will not apply as clarified in the O.M. No. 22011/2/2002-Estt.(A) dated 24.2.2003.
After the disciplinary proceedings are concluded and penalty is imposed, vigilance clearance will not be denied. The details of the penalty imposed are to be conveyed to the DPC.
11. This Department has issued separate instructions for accordance of vigilance clearance to a member of Central Civil Services/holder of Central Civil post with respect to (a) empanelment (b) deputation (c) appointments to sensitive posts and assignments to training programmes (except mandatory training) vide O.M. No. 11012/ 11/ 2007-(Estt. A) dated 14.12.2007. It has been further clarified in the O.M. No. 11012/6/2008-Estt. (A) dated 07.07.2008 that these instructions do not apply to promotions. While consideration for promotion is a right of an employee but empanelment, deputation, posting and assignment for training (except mandatory training) is not a right of an employee and is decided keeping in view the suitability of the officer and administrative exigencies. Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.19 11:59:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 11 OA 70/2022
12. It may thus be noted that vigilance clearance cannot be denied on the grounds of pending disciplinary/criminal/court case against a Government servant, if the three conditions mentioned in Para 2 of this Department's O.M. dated 14.09.1992 are not satisfied. The legally tenable and objective procedure in such cases would be to strengthen the administrative vigilance in each Department and to provide for processing the disciplinary cases in a time bound manner. If the charges against a Government servant are grave enough and whom Government does not wish to promote, it is open to the Government to suspend such an officer and expedite the disciplinary proceedings."
Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the charges against the applicant are grave in nature as P. S Case No. 142 of 2016 under section 341/324/506/34 IPC has been registered wherein charge sheet has been filed and pending before the Hon'ble A.C.J.M Court. The applicant has not submitted any progress of the case and efforts taken by him to expedite the trial before the Hon'ble Court. As per the instructions issued by the Ministry of Personal Public Grievances and Pension vide Office Memorandum dated 2nd November 2012, vigilance clearance for promotion may be denied if Government servants in respect of whom prosecution for a criminal charge is pending. Vigilance Clearance is mandatory for purpose of any promotion including ad-hoc promotion and financial up-gradation and the applicant petitioner has not been given Vigilance Clearance due to the pendency of the Criminal Case before the Court and he was also placed under deemed suspension in the said case. The procedure and guidelines to be followed in the matter of promotion of Government servants against whom disciplinary court proceedings are pending or whose conduct is Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.19 11:59:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 12 OA 70/2022 under investigation have been reviewed carefully Government has also noticed the judgment dated 27.08.1991 of the Supreme Court in Union of India etc. vs. K.V. Jankiraman etc. (AIR 1991 SC 2010) as a result of the review and in supersession of all the earlier instructions on the subject. The procedure to be followed in this regard by the authorities concerned is laid down in the OM dated 14.09.1992 for their guidance. The Criminal case under section 341 324 506 34 IPC is pending before the Hon'ble Court of ACJM and granting of ad-hoc promotion at this stage is not in the public interest. Further, the claim of the applicant for up-gradation of his ACR APAR and grant of DACP benefits has been rejected due to his acts and deeds and involvement in criminal proceedings.
Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that a DPC was held on 19.07.2018 for consideration of promotion of applicant from Lecture to Assistant Professor for financial up-gradation to GP of Rs. 6600/- under Dynamic assured career progression scheme (DACP). The committee has kept their assessment in sealed cover considering the pending criminal cases against the officer. The case is still pending before the Hon'ble Court and charges against the applicant are grave in nature. Even, the police has moved an application to add section 308 IPC which was inclined by the Court of Ld. ACJM considering gravity of acts and offence trial by the Session Court. It is submitted that the applicant was arrested under section 341 324 506 34 IPC by the Bidhannagar Police and was detained in custody. Therefore, he was put under suspension by the Department.
Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the criminal case has been registered by a third party and charges are grave in nature. Considering the applicant for ad-hoc promotion during the pendency of the Criminal ease is not in interest of public. Respondent has already considered the representation of Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.19 11:59:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 13 OA 70/2022 applicant in accordance with the instructions and OM of DOP&T issued from time to time and the decision not to grant him ad hoc promotion was taken accordingly. The case of the applicant for ad-hoc promotion during the pendency of Criminal case wherein grave charges are framed and leveled against him is not in the interest of public also. Due to the grave criminal charges and absence of Vigilance Clearance, the applicant could not be considered for even ad-hoc promotion. As per office memorandum the applicant has failed to get vigilance clearance for promotion and the promotion has been rightly denied in the present circumstances. Ministry of Ayush, vide office order dated 31.08.2021 informed the Director, National Institute of Homeopathy, Kolkata that ad hoc promotion of the applicant may be kept in abeyance till the final outcome of the criminal case against the applicant.
5. The applicant has filed his rejoinder and reiterated the submissions made in the O.A.
6. Heard the parties. Perused materials on record.
7. The applicant is a doctor who joined the National Institute of Homoeopathy in 2010 as a Lecturer in the Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- in PB-3. A criminal case was lodged against him in 2016 on the basis of a complaint filed by a third party in a dispute not related to the applicant's service. A DPC convened in 2018 to consider the applicant's promotion to the scale of Assistant Professor in GP Rs. 6600/- under DACP scheme, put its recommendation with respect to his promotion in sealed cover. Since the criminal case is still pending against the applicant, he has not yet been granted promotion.
Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.19 11:59:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 14 OA 70/2022
8. The applicant has primarily relied on the following provisions in DOPT OM dated 14.09.1992:
"4. It is necessary to ensure that the disciplinary case/criminal prosecution instituted against any Government servant is not unduly prolonged and all efforts to finalize expeditiously the proceedings should be taken so that the need for keeping the case of a Government servant in a sealed cover is limited to the barest minimum. It has, therefore, been decided that the appointing authorities concerned should review comprehensively the cases of Government servants, whose suitability for promotion to a higher grade has been kept in a sealed cover on the expiry of 6 months from the date of convening the first Departmental Promotion Committee which had adjudged his suitability and kept its findings in the sealed cover. Such a review should be done subsequently also every six months. The review should, inter alia, cover the progress made in the disciplinary proceedings/criminal prosecution and the further measures to be taken to expedite their completion.
5. In spite of the six-monthly review referred to in para 4 above, there may be some cases where the disciplinary case/criminal prosecution against the Government servant is not concluded even after the expiry of two years from the date of the meeting of the first DPC, which kept its findings in respect of the Government servant in a sealed cover. In such a situation, the appointing authority may review the case of the Government servant, provided he is not under suspension, to consider the desirability of giving him ad-hoc promotion keeping in view the following aspects:-
(a) Whether the promotion of the officer will be against public interest;
(b) Whether the charges are grave enough to warrant continued denial of promotion;
(c) Whether there is any likelihood of the case coming to a conclusion in the near future;
(d) Whether the delay in the finalization of proceedings, departmental or in a court of law, is not directly or indirectly attributable to the Government servant concerned; and
(e) Whether there is any likelihood of misuse of official position which the Government servant may occupy after ad-hoc promotion, which may adversely affect the conduct to the departmental case/criminal prosecution.
The appointing authority should also consult the Central Bureau of Investigation and take their views into account where the departmental proceedings or criminal prosecution arose out of the investigations conducted by the Bureau.
5.1 In case the appointing authority comes to a conclusion that it would not be against the public interest to allow ad-hoc promotion to the Government servant, his case should be placed before the next DPC held in the normal course after the expiry of the two year period to decide whether the officer is suitable for promotion on ad-hoc basis. Where the Government servant is considered for ad-hoc promotion, the Departmental Promotion Committee should make its assessment on the basis of the totality of the individual's record of service without taking into account the pending disciplinary case/criminal prosecution against him.
5.2 After a decision is taken to promote a Government servant on an ad-hoc basis, an order of promotion may be issued making it clear in the order itself that:-
(i) the promotion is being made on purely ad-hoc basis and the ad-
hoc promotion will not confer any right for regular promotion; and
(ii) the promotion shall be "until further orders". It should also be indicated in the orders that the Government reserves the right to Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.19 11:59:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 15 OA 70/2022 cancel the ad-hoc promotion and revert the Government servant,at any time,to the post from which he was promoted.
5.3 If the Government servant concerned is acquitted in the criminal prosecution on the merits of the case or is fully exonerated in the departmental proceedings, the ad-hoc promotion already made may be confirmed and the promotion treated as a regular one from the date of the ad-
hoc promotion with all attendant benefits. In case the Government servant could have normally got his regular promotion from a date prior to the date of his ad-hoc promotion with reference to his placement in the DPC proceedings kept in the sealed cover(s) and the actual date of promotion of the person ranked immediately junior to him by the same DPC, he would also be allowed his due seniority and benefit of notional promotion as envisaged in para 6. 5.4 If the Government servant is not acquitted on merits in the criminal prosecution but purely on technical grounds and Government either proposes to take up the matter to a higher court or to proceed against him departmentally or if the Government servant is not exonerated in the departmental proceedings, the ad-hoc promotion granted to him should be brought to an end."
9. It is the applicant's case that since the charges in the criminal proceedings against him have no relation to his service, its pendency should not come in the way of his getting his due promotion.
Respondents on the other hand contend that the charges against the applicant are grave enough to cast a shadow on his suitability for promotion. Therefore, in terms of para 5(b) above, the applicant's case for promotion cannot be considered. Respondents have also argued that vigilance clearance which is required before considering the cases of promotion cannot be given to the applicant in view of the pendency of the criminal case.
10. Learned Counsel for the applicant has cited the judgement of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in O.A No. 1210/2024 dated 27.11.2024 in support of the applicant's claim. This order has quoted from the order of the Hon'ble High Court at Delhi in WP(C) No. 6391/2016 which has dealt with the provisions of DOP&T OM dated 14.09.1992. Para 7 and 8 of the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court is reproduced below:
Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.19 11:59:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 16 OA 70/2022 (emphasis added) "7. In view of the above discussion, it is held that respondent/employer cannot rely upon the OM dated 14.9.1992 to deny promotion to the petitioner by not declaring the result by resorting to the sealed cover procedure pursuant to the decision of the DPC, and for which results were declared on 30.6.2014, inasmuch as, the OM dated 14.9.1992 would only deal with a criminal case which arises on account of misdemeanor or misconduct or violation of the service rules by an employee while performing his services with the employer.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition is allowed and the respondent's procedure of putting the promotion of the petitioner in a sealed cover of the DPC with respect to promotion of the petitioner to the post of Deputy Manager is quashed. The result of the petitioner's promotion in terms of the DPC for which results were to be declared on 30.6.2014 will now be declared within a period of two weeks and such results will be taken as having been declared as regards the petitioner on 30.6.2014. Petitioner will be entitled to appropriate consequential reliefs."
After referring to the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its order, Principal Bench in its order in O.A 1210 of 2024 has observed as follows:
(emphasis added) "24. As can be seen from the above decisions, of the High Court, a criminal case not concerning the official duties of the employee can not become the reason to place the employees' case in sealed cover. The case of the applicant is on a much better footing than those referred to above. Herein the applicant is not the main accused in the FIR. The allegations made in the FIR are in no way concerned or connected with the official duties of the applicant. Secondly, the applicant has been in government service since her initial joining in the year 1996 and, till date, there is no other allegation against her. Thirdly, the FIR concerns a matrimonial dispute between the complainant and the brother of the applicant/husband of the complainant. Fourthly, even the charges in the said FIR are yet to be framed."
11. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the criminal case is in no way related to the applicant's official duty or role. In our view, therefore, ratio enunciated in the order of Principal Bench in O.A No. 1210/2024 as well as in the Hon'ble Delhi High Court's order in WP(C) No. 6391/2016 is squarely applicable in this case. The respondents in their reply have annexed at Annexure R-3, a copy of a certificate issued by CVO/NIH which gives the details of the pending criminal case against the applicant. The same document also certifies that no major or Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.19 11:59:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 17 OA 70/2022 minor penalty has been imposed on the applicant in the last 10 years and that the integrity of the applicant is beyond doubt. This certificate, in our opinion is sufficient to be treated as a vigilance clearance for the purpose of applicant's promotion under DACP scheme. The case against the applicant had been filed in 2016 and the DPC to consider grant of promotion under DACP scheme to the applicant met in 2018. Two years had passed after the filing of the FIR against the applicant on the date of consideration of case for his promotion by the DPC. The DPC should have considered this fact in the light of the specific provisions in DoPT OM dated 14.09.1992 quoted above.
12. In view of the foregoing discussion, in our opinion, the decision of the respondents to deny promotion to the applicant by keeping the DPC recommendations in sealed cover since 2018 on the ground of pendency of a criminal case is not legally sustainable. Consequently, the impugned order dated 12.11.2020 issued by the Director, National Institute of Homoeopathy, Kolkata, order dated 31.08.2021 issued by Ministry of AYUSH, communication letter dated 09th December, 2021 issued by the Joint Director, National Institute of Homoeopathy, Kolkata are quashed and set aside.
13. Respondents are directed to open the sealed cover in which the recommendations of the DPC convened in 2018 are kept. If found eligible, the applicant should be granted notional promotion from the date he became eligible for such promotion under DACP scheme along with all consequential benefits within a period of 90 days from the date a copy of this order is received by them. It is, however, made clear that the applicant will not be paid any arrears of pay for the period he has not actually worked as Associate Professor in the GP Rs. 6600/-. Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.19 11:59:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 18 OA 70/2022
14. OA is disposed of. No costs.
(Suchitto Kumar Das) (Urmita Datta (Sen))
Member (A) Member (J)
DB
Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.19 11:59:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0