Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Deepak Malik vs Govt. Of Nct Delhi on 10 April, 2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
OA 352/2015
With
OA 253/2015
OA 254/2015
New Delhi this the 10th day of April, 2015
Honble Mr. A.K.Bhardwaj, Member (J)
Honble Mr. V.N. Gaur, Member (A)
OA 352/2015
Shri Deepak Malik,
S/o Sh. Bhagat Singh Malik,
R/o H,No.T-114, Gali No.2,
Indira Colony, Narela,
Delhi-40.
(Presently Gr.II/DASS, GNCT of Delhi ) .. Applicant
(By Advocate Shri Ajesh Luthra )
VERSUS
1. Govt. of NCT Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary,
5th Level, Delhi Sachivalaya,
New Delhi.
2. The Principal Secretary
(Services)
GNCT of Delhi
7th Level, B Wing,
Delhi Secretariat, I.P.Estate,
New Delhi.
3. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board,
Through its Secretary,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi, F-18, Kardardooma
Institutional Area, Delhi-92
4. The Commissioner
Value Added Tax Department
(Department of Trade & Taxes)
Vyapar Bhawan, New Delhi-2. Respondents
(By Advocate Mr. Vijay Pandita )
OA 253/2015
Sh. Shyambir Singh
S/o Sh. Raje Das,
R/o A-164, Meet Nagar,
Delhi-94
(Presently Gr.II/DASS, GNCT of Delhi) .. Applicant
(By Advocate Shri Ajesh Luthra )
VERSUS
1. Govt. of NCT Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary,
5th Level, Delhi Sachivalaya,
New Delhi.
2. The Principal Secretary
(Services)
GNCT of Delhi
7th Level, B Wing,
Delhi Secretariat, I.P.Estate,
New Delhi.
3. Secretary,
Rehabilitation Department,
GNCT of Delhi
GLNS Complex, Delhi Gate,
New Delhi. .. Respondents
(By Advocate Mr. Vijay Pandita )
OA 254/2015
Sh. Naveen Kumar,
S/o Late Sh. Aman Singh Dahiya,
R/o BF-73, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-88
(Presently Gr.II/DASS, GNCT of Delhi) .. Applicant
(By Advocate Shri Ajesh Luthra )
VERSUS
1. Govt. of NCT Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary,
5th Level, Delhi Sachivalaya,
New Delhi.
2. The Principal Secretary
(Services)
GNCT of Delhi
7th Level, B Wing,
Delhi Secretariat, I.P.Estate,
New Delhi.
3. Directorate of Education,
Through its Director,
GNCT of Delhi, Old Secretariat,
Delhi-54
4. The Commissioner
Value Added Tax Department
(Department of Trade & Taxes)
Vyapar Bhawan, New Delhi-2. Respondents
(By Advocate Mr. Vijay Pandita )
ORDER
Honble Mr. A.K.Bhardwaj, Member (J):
These three Original Applications raise, same question of law, thus are taken up for disposal together in terms of this common order. The applicants joined Delhi Administration Subordinate Service (DASS) as Grade-II in the year 2008. The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) held under the chairmanship of Principal Secretary (Services), Govt. of NCT of Delhi on 19.12.2014 recommended appointment of 340 Grade-II (DASS) for their appointment by way of promotion as Grade-I on regular basis. The appointment was made under Rule 6 of DASS Rules, 1967 and was made effective w.e.f. 1.01.2015. When certain juniors of the applicants were given promotion, the applicants were not promoted, for the reason, that the Food & Supplies Department had intimated the DPC that CBI had recommended regular departmental action against them.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in terms of Office Memo No.22011/4/91-Estt.(A) dated 14.09.1992, the DPC should assess the suitability of Government servants coming within the purview of the circumstances mentioned in para 2 of the OM with other eligible candidates without taking into consideration the disciplinary case/criminal case/prosecution pending and assessment of the DPC including its recommendation in respect of such Government servants should be kept in a sealed cover. According to him, once none of the circumstances, mentioned in para 2 of the OM were prevalent in respect of the applicants at the time of meeting of the DPC, they should have been assessed for their promotion in disregard of the disciplinary case/criminal case and the recommendation of DPC regarding their suitability for promotion could not have been kept in sealed cover. To buttress his stand, he placed reliance upon the OM F.No.22034/4/2012- Estt. (D) dated 2.11.2012 and the judgments of Honble Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. Vs. Anil Kumar Sarkar (Civil Appeal No. 2537/2013) and Union of India and Others Vs. K.V.Jankiraman and Others (1991) 4 SCC 109).
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents submitted that:-
(i) In view of the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the cases of Bishan Swaroop Vs. Union of India (1974) SC 1618), Mohd Mauddin (1987) 4 SCC 486), 1992 SLR (SC) 635, 1993 (1) SCC 17) and 1993 (Supp) SCC 575), Government employee has no right to promotion and the OA is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
(ii) In respect of applicant in OA No. 352/2015 i.e. Mr. Deepak Malik, the DPC received an information that a criminal case had been registered against him by the CBI vide RC No.DAI-2013-A-0027 on 8.10.2013. While regarding the applicants in OA No. 253/2015 and OA 254/2015, the DPC was informed by the Food & Supplies Department vide letters No. F.8 (25) /2011/ Admn / F&S/ 3251 dated 17.07.2014 and F.8 (25) /2011/Admn/ F&S/5186 dated 21.12.2014 that the CBI had recommended initiation of major penalty disciplinary action against them in the criminal case registered vide FIR Nos.RC-DAI-2012-A-0033 and RC-DAI-2012-A 0034, 0035, 0036, 0037.
(iii) Since no vigilance clearance was received in respect of their candidature, the recommendation of DPC regarding promotion of the applicants to DASS Grade-I have been rightly kept in sealed cover.
4. Finally, he relied upon the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Kewal Kumar (1993) 3 SCC 204) to espouse that once first information report had been registered by the CBI and on that basis a decision had been taken by the competent authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings for imposition of major penalty against the respondent prior to the meeting of the DPC, the applicability of sealed cover procedure cannot be doubted.
5. We heard counsel for parties and perused the record. Admittedly, the DPC met on 19.12.2014 considered the applicants for their promotion as Grade-I (DASS), but for want of clearance certificate from vigilance and on account of registration of criminal case against them and/or recommendation of CBI to initiate major penalty proceeding against them, resorted to sealed cover on its recommendation regarding their fitness for promotion. The relevant excerpt of the minutes of DPC read thus:-
1. Shri Naveen Kumar (DOB: 29.08.1981), Snty No.7380 (UR) The DPC was informed that Department of Food & Supplies vide letter No.F.8(25)/2011/Admn/F&S/5186 dated 21.11.2014 has intimated that FIRs were registered by CBI/ACB vide FIR No.RC-DAI-2012-A 0034, 0035, 0036, 0037. CBI has also recommended for initiation of Major Departmental Action against him.
The DPC after considering the report has decided to keep the findings in respect of Shri Naveen Kumar, Grade-1I (DASS) in sealed cover.
xxx xxx
6. Shri Deepak Malik (DOB: 19.06.1979), Snty No.7725 (UR) The DPC was informed that Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board vide letter No. F.5 (59)/2013/Admn/DSSSB/7231 dated 06.08.2014 has intimated that no vigilance case is pending or contemplated against Shri Deepak Malik (DOB: 19.06.1979), Grade-II (DASS)/HC, working in DSSSB with effect from 13.09.2013 to till date. However, as per information received from the Department of Trade & Taxes Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi vide their letter No.F.4 (81)/Vig./2013/DTT/961 dated 23.10.2013 a criminal case has been registered against Shri Deepak Malik by the CBI vide RC No.DAI-2013-A-0027 dated 08.10.2013.
The DPC after considering the report has decided to keep the findings in respect of Shri Deepak Malik, Grade-II (DASS) in sealed cover.
7. Shri Shyambir Singh (DOB: 05.05.1981), Snty No.7728 (SC) The DPC was informed that Food & Supplies Department vide letter No. F.8(25)/2011/Admn/F&S/3251 dated 17.07.2014 intimated that CBI has recommended Regular Departmental Action (RDA) for Major Penalty against Shri Shyambir Singh, Grade-II (DASS)/Inspector in the case RC-DAI-2012-A-0033 dated 15.10.2012. The case is pending for requisite documents from CBI.
The DPC after considering the report has decided to keep the findings in respect of Shri Shyambir Singh, Grade-II (DASS) in sealed cover.
6. As far as the RC-DAI-2012-A-0033 dated 15.10.2012, wherein Mr Shyambir Singh, the applicant in OA No 253/2015 was involved admittedly, the closure report filed by the Investigating Agency was accepted by the Court. As far as other two OAs are concerned, it is not the case of respondents that any of the circumstances referred to in para 2 of OM dated 14.09.1992 were prevalent against them on the date of DPC. As far as the plea of Mr. Pandita that the promotion can not be claimed as a matter of right is concerned, the issue does not arise in the present OA and the only issue involved, herein before us is that, in what circumstances, sealed cover can be resorted to on the recommendation of DPC regarding promotion of a Government servant.
7. In terms of OM No.22011/4/91-Estt. (A) dated 14.09.1992, the DPC should assess the suitability of a Government servants for promotion along with others without taking into consideration the disciplinary case/criminal prosecution pending against them and should keep the assessment of suitability of such candidates falling within the purview of the circumstances mentioned in para 2 of the OM in a sealed cover. Para 2 and 2.1 of the OM read thus:-
2. At the time of consideration of the cases of Government servant for promotion details of Government servant in the consideration zone for promotion falling under the following category should be specifically brought to the notice of the Departmental Promotion Committee.
i) Government servants under suspension
ii) Government servants in respect of whom a charge sheet has been issued and the disciplinary proceedings are pendings; and
iii) Government servants in respect of whom prosecution for criminal charge is pending.
2.1 The Departmental Promotion Committee shall assess the suitability of Government servants coming within the purview of the circumstances mentioned above along with other eligible candidates without taking into consideration the disciplinary case/criminal prosecution pending. The assessment of the DPC including unfit for promotion and the grading awarded by it will be kept in a sealed cover. The cover will be superscribed Findings regarding suitability for promotion to the grade/post of in respect of Shri. ( name of the Government servant). Not to be opened till the terminator of the disciplinary case/criminal prosecution against Shri.. The proceeding of the DPC need only contain the note. The findings are contained in the attached sealed cover. The authority competent to fill the vacancy should be separately advised to fill the vacancy in the higher grade only in an officiating capacity when the findings of the DPC in respect of the suitability; of a Government servant for his promotion are kept in a sealed cover. It is not the case of respondents that the circumstances mentioned in para 2 of OM dated 14.09.1992 were prevalent against any of the applicants on the date of meeting of the DPC. As far as the circumstances mentioned in Para 2 (i) & (ii) are concerned, there is no ambiguity, as neither any of the applicants were under suspension on the relevant date nor any charge sheet had been issued to any of them.
8. As far as the pendency of prosecution is concerned, the issue has been quite debatable and regarding the meaning of prosecution different views have been taken from time to time. Such views have been:
(i) prosecution starts with registration of FIR
(ii) the commencing point of prosecution is filing of charge sheet by the Investigating Officer in the Court.
(iii) it is the date when the Magistrate take cognizance of the charge sheet /challan /investigation report filed by the Police that the prosecution starts.
(iv) prosecution starts with framing of charges by the Court. The most accepted view on the issue had been that the prosecution starts with the filing of Investigation report/challan/charge sheet by the Investigating Agency in the Court. In any case, it is not the case of respondents that the police/investigating Agency had filed any charge sheet/challan/investigation report against the applicants in the Court. Rather in respect of applicant in OA No. 253/2015, the CBI has filed the closure report which has been accepted by the Court. The proposition that in what circumstances and at what stage of criminal case/disciplinary case, the recommendation of DPC regarding suitability of a Government servant for promotion should be kept in sealed cover could be dealt with at length by their Lordships of Honble Supreme Court in Union of India and Others Vs. K.V.Jankiraman and Others ( 1991) 4 SCC 109) and in para 16 of the judgment, it could be viewed that the sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after the charge memo/charge sheet is issued and the pendency of preliminary investigation prior to the stage should not be sufficient to enable the authority to adopt the sealed cover procedure. Para 16 and 29 of the judgment read thus:-
16. On the first question, viz., as to when for the purposes of the sealed cover procedure the disciplinary/criminal proceedings can be said to have commenced, the Full Bench of the Tribunal has held that it is only when a charge-memo in a disciplinary proceedings or a charge-sheet in a criminal prosecution is issued to the employee that it can be said that the departmental proceedings/criminal prosecution is initiated against the employee. The sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after the charge-memo/charge-sheet is issued. The pendency of preliminary investigation prior to that stage will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure. We are in agreement with the Tribunal on this point. The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-authorities that when there are serious allegations and it takes time to collect necessary evidence to prepare and issue charge-memo/ charge-sheet, it would not be in the interest of the purity of administration to reward the employee with a promotion, increment etc., does not impress us. The acceptance of this contention would result in injustice to the employees in many cases. As has been the experience so far, the preliminary investigations take an inordinately long time and particularly when they are initiated at the instance of the interested persons, they are kept pending deliberately. Many times they never result in the issue of any charge-memo/charge-sheet. If the allegations are serious and the authorities are keen in investigating them, ordinarily it would not take much time to collect the relevant evidence and finalise the charges. What is further, if the charges are that serious, the authorities have the power to suspend the employee under the relevant rules, and the suspension by itself permits a resort to the sealed cover procedure. The authorities thus are not without a remedy. It was then contended on behalf of the authorities that conclusions Nos. 1 and 4 of the Full Bench of the Tribunal are inconsistent with each other. Those conclusions are as follows:
"(1) consideration for promotion, selection grade, crossing the efficiency bar or higher scale of pay cannot be withheld merely on the ground of pendency of a disciplinary or criminal proceedings against an official;
(2)...................................................
(3).......................................
(4) the sealed cover procedure can be resorted only after a charge memo is served on the concerned official or the charge sheet filed before the criminal court and not before;"
xxx xxx 29. According to us, the Tribunal has erred in holding that when an officer is found guilty in the discharge of his duties, an imposition of penalty is all that is necessary to improve his conduct and to enforce discipline and ensure purity in the administration. In the first instance, the penalty short of dismissal will vary from reduction in rank to censure. We are sure that the Tribunal has not intended that the promotion should be given to the officer from the original date even when the penalty imparted is of reduction in rank. On principle, for the same reasons, the officer cannot be rewarded by promotion as a matter of course even if the penalty is other than that of the reduction in rank. An employee has no right to promotion. He has only a right to be considered for promotion. The promotion to a post and more so, to a selection post, depends upon several circumstances. To qualify for promotion, the least that is expected of an employee is to have an unblemished record. That is the minimum expected to ensure a clean and efficient administration and to protect the public interests. An employee found guilty of a misconduct cannot be placed on par with the other employees and his case has to be treated differently. There is, therefore, no discrimination when in the matter of promotion, he is treated differently. The least that is expected of any administration is that it does not reward an employee with promotion retrospectively from a date when for his conduct before that date he is penalised in praesenti. When an employee is held guilty and penalised and is, therefore, not promoted at least till the date on which he is penalised, he cannot be said to have been subjected to a further penalty on that account. A denial of promotion in such circumstances is not a penalty but a necessary consequence of his conduct In fact, while considering an employee for promotion his whole record has to be taken into consideration and if a promotion committee takes the penalties imposed upon the employee into consideration and denies him the promotion, such
denial is not illegal and unjustified. If, further, the promoting authority can take into consideration the penalty or penalties awarded to an employee in the past while considering his promotion and deny him promotion on that ground, it will be irrational to hold that it cannot take the penalty into consideration when it is imposed at a later date because of the pendency of the proceedings, although it is for conduct prior to the date the authority considers the promotion. For these reasons, we are of the view that the Tribunal is not right in striking down the said portion of the second sub-paragraph after clause (iii) of "paragraph 3 of the said Memorandum. We, therefore, set aside the said findings of the Tribunal.
9. In Delhi Development Authority Vs. H.C. Khurana (1993)3 SCC 196), it could be viewed that even in such cases where a decision to initiate the departmental proceedings is taken, the recommendation of DPC regarding suitability of Government servant for promotion need to be kept in sealed cover. In the said case, Honble Supreme Court defined the word issue and viewed that for the purpose of interpretation of OM dated 14.09.1992 issued being the decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings is taken and translated into action by dispatch of charge sheet, there is no doubt that the decision had been taken. Para 4 to 15 of the judgment read thus:-
4. Para 2 is the relevant portion in these memoranda. In O. M. dated 12-1-1988, para 2 is as under:-
"Cases of Government servants to whom Sealed Cover Procedure will be applicable
2. At the time of consideration of the cases of Government servants for promotion, details of Government servants in the consideration zone for promotion falling under the following categories should be specifically brought to the notice of the Departmental Promotion Committee:-
(i) Government servants under suspension;
(ii) Government servants in respect of whom disciplinary proceedings are pending or a decision has been taken to initiate disciplinary proceedings;
(iii) Government servants in respect of whom prosecution 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 investigation 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)
5. 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 charge-sheet has been issued and the disciplinary proceedings are pending; and"
(Emphasis supplied)
6. 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 support for his submission.
7. Before we refer to Jankiraman (AIR 1991 SC 2010), we may advert to clause (ii) of para 2 of 0. M. dated 12-1-1988 which was the guideline applicable at the material time, in the present case, and is as under :-
"(ii) Government servants in respect of whom disciplinary proceedings are pending or a decision has been taken to initiate disciplinary proceedings;"
(Emphasis supplied)
8. These words clearly indicate that the, sealed cover procedure was applicable, in cases where the 'disciplinary proceedings are .pending' in respect 'of the Government servant; or' a decision has been taken to initiate disciplinary proceedings'. Thus, on a decision being taken to initiate disciplinary proceedings, the guidelines attract the sealed cover procedure. The reason is obvious. Where a decision has been taken to initiate the disciplinary 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 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 improper to promote him, if found otherwise suitable, unless exonerated. To 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 conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings; and in case he is exonerated therein, to promote him with all consequential benefits, if found otherwise suitable by the Selection Committee. On the other hand, giving him promotion after taking the decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings, would be incongruous and against public policy and principles of good administration. This is the rationale behind the guideline to follow the sealed cover procedure in such cases, to prevent the possibility of any injustice or arbitrariness.
9. The question now, is: What is the stage, when it can be said, that '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 charge-sheet, since issue of the charge-sheet is a consequence of the decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings. Framing the charge-sheet, is the first step taken for holding the enquiry into the allegations, on the decision taken to initiate disciplinary proceedings. The charge-sheet is framed on the basis of the allegations made against the Government servant; the charge-sheet is then served on him to enable him to give his explanation; if the explanation is satisfactory, the proceedings are closed, otherwise, an enquiry is held into the charges; if the charges are not proved, the proceedings are closed and the Government servant exonerated; but if the charges are proved, the penalty follows. Thus, the, service of the charge-sheet 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, in service of the charge-sheet to the Government servant, after it has been framed and despatched, does not have the effect of delaying initiation of the disciplinary proceedings, inasmuch as information, to the Government servant of the charges framed against him, by service of the charge-sheet, is not a part of the decision-making process of the authorities for initiating the disciplinary proceedings.
10. This plain meaning of the expression used in clause (ii) of para 2 of 0. 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 positon by using the expression 'charge-sheet has been issued' to indicate that service of charge-sheet is not necessary; and issue of the charge-sheet by its despatch indicates beyond doubt that the decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings was taken. In our opinion, Jankiraman (AIR 1991 SC 2010) takes the same view, and it is not possible to read that decision otherwise in the manner suggested by learned Counsel for the respondent.
11. 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 took the view, that even though the charge-sheet against the Government servant was framed and direction given to despatch the same to the Government servant as a result of the decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings taken prior to the meeting of the D.P.C., that was not sufficient to attract the sealed cover procedures merely because service of the charge-sheet was effected subsequent to the meeting of the D.P.C. Moreover, in Jankiraman (1991 (4) SCC 109: AIR 1991 SC 2010) itself, it was stated thus:
"14. To bring the record up to date, it may be pointed 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 Memorandum No. 22011/2/ 86-Estt. (A) dated January 12, 1988 in supersession of all the earlier instructions on the subject including the Office Memorandum dated January 30, 1982......... A further guideline contained in this Memorandum 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 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 for such prosecution has been issued or decision to accord such sanction is taken.
15. These differences in the two Memoranda have no bearing on the questions to be answered. "
(Emphasis supplied)
12. Thereafter, in Jankiraman (1991(4) SCC 109 : AIR 1991 SC 2010), the conclusions of the Full Bench of the Tribunal, under consideration, were quoted, and then while restating that the conclusions of the Tribunal could be reconciled, it was further stated, thus:
"17. There is no doubt that there is a seeming contradiction between 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 the relevant time pending at the stage, when charge-memo/ charge-sheet has already been issued to the employee. Thus read, there is no inconsistency in the two conclusions."
(Emphasis supplied)
13. It will be seen that in Jankiraman also, emphasis is on the stage when '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 respondent, means service on the 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 charge-sheet leaving no doubt that the decision had been taken. The contrary view would defeat the object by enabling the Government servant, if so inclined, to evade service and thereby frustrate the decision and get promotion in spite of that decision. Obviously, the contrary view cannot be taken.
14. 'Issue' of the charge-sheet in the context of a decision taken to initiate the disciplinary proceedings must mean, as it does, the framing of the charge-sheet and taking of the necessary action to despatch the charge-sheet 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 charge-sheet 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, 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 (AIR 1991 SC 20 10) which have been accepted thereafter In para 17 in the manner indicated above, do use the word 'served' in conclusion No.(4), but the fact of 'issue' of the charge-sheet 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.
15. The meaning of the word 'issued', on which considerable stress was laid by learned Counsel for the respondent, has to be gathered from the 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 charge-sheet, therefore, means its despatch to the Government servant, and this act is complete the moment steps are taken for the purpose, by framing the charge-sheet and despatching it to the Government servant, the further fact of its actual service on the Government servant pot being a necessary part of its requirement. This is the sense in which the word 'issue' was used in the expression 'charge-sheet has already been issued to the employee', in para 17 of the decision in Jankiraman.
10. In Union of India Vs. Kewal Kumar ( 1993) 3 SCC 204), having taken note of the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Union of India and Others Vs. K. V.Jankiraman and Ors, Honble Supreme Court ruled that in such cases where the FIR was registered by the CBI and on that basis a decision has been taken by the competent authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings for imposition of major penalty against the Government servant prior to the meeting of DPC, the applicability of the sealed cover procedure cannot be doubted. Para 3 of the judgment read thus:-
3. It is obvious that when the competent authority takes the decision to initiate a disciplinary proceeding or steps are taken for launching a criminal prosecution against the government servant, he cannot be given the promotion, unless exonerated, even if the government servant is recommended for promotion by the D.P.C., being found suitable otherwise. In a case like the present, where the First Information Report was registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation, and on that basis the decision had been taken by the competent authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings for imposition of major penalty on the respondent prior to the meeting of the D.P. C., the applicability of the sealed cover procedure cannot be doubted. The formulation of the charges required for implementing the decision of the competent authority to initiate the disciplinary proceedings, is satisfied in such a case by the recording of the First Information Report by the Central Bureau of Investigation which records the allegations against the respondent, and provides the basis for disciplinary proceedings. The requisite formulation of the charges, in such a case, is no longer nebulous, being crystallised in the F.I.R. itself and, therefore, even if the charge-sheet was issued by its despatch to the respondent subsequent to the meeting of the D.P.C., this fact alone cannot benefit the respondent.
11. In Union of India and Ors Vs. Anil Kumar Sarkar (Civil Appeal No.2537/2013), following the view taken in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. K.V.Jankiraman and Ors, their Lordships of Honble Supreme Court ruled that disciplinary proceedings is ordinarily said to be initiated only when a charge sheet is issued. Relevant excerpt of the judgment read thus:
13. It is not in dispute that an identical issue was considered by this Court in Union of India and Others vs. K.V.Jankiraman and Others, (1991) 4 SCC 109. The common questions involved in all those matters were:
(1) What is the date from which it can be said that disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending against an employee? (2) What is the course to be adopted when the employee is held guilty in such proceedings if the guilt merits punishment other than that of dismissal? and (3) To what benefits an employee who is completely or partially exonerated is entitled to and from which date?. Among the three questions, we are concerned about question No.1. As per the rules applicable, the sealed cover procedure is adopted when an employee is due for promotion, increment etc. but disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending against him at the relevant time and hence, the findings of his entitlement to the benefit are kept in a sealed cover to be opened after the proceedings in question are over. Inasmuch as we are concerned about the first question, the dictum laid down by this Court relating to the said issue is as follows:-
16. On the first question, viz., as to when for the purposes of the sealed cover procedure the disciplinary/criminal proceedings can be said to have commenced, the Full Bench of the Tribunal has held that it is only when a charge-memo in a disciplinary proceedings or a charge-sheet in a criminal prosecution is issued to the employee that it can be said that the departmental proceedings/criminal prosecution is initiated against the employee. The sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after the charge-memo/charge-sheet is issued. The pendency of preliminary investigation prior to that stage will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure. We are in agreement with the Tribunal on this point. The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant- authorities that when there are serious allegations and it takes time to collect necessary evidence to prepare and issue charge-memo/charge-
sheet, it would not be in the interest of the purity of administration to reward the employee with a promotion, increment etc. does not impress us. The acceptance of this contention would result in injustice to the employees in many cases. As has been the experience so far, the preliminary investigations take an inordinately long time and particularly when they are initiated at the instance of the interested persons, they are kept pending deliberately. Many times they never result in the issue of any charge-memo/charge-sheet. If the allegations are serious and the authorities are keen in investigating them, ordinarily it should not take much time to collect the relevant evidence and finalise the charges. What is further, if the charges are that serious, the authorities have the power to suspend the employee under the relevant rules, and the suspension by itself permits a resort to the sealed cover procedure. The authorities thus are not without a remedy.
In para 17, this Court further held:
17. 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 the relevant time pending at the stage when charge-memo/charge-sheet has already been issued to the employee. After finding so, in the light of the fact that no charge sheet was served on the respondent-employee when the DPC met to consider his promotion, yet the sealed cover procedure was adopted. In such circumstances, this Court held that the Tribunal has rightly directed the authorities to open the sealed cover and if the respondent was found fit for promotion by the DPC, to give him the promotion from the date of his immediate junior Shri M. Raja Rao was promoted pursuant to the order dated April 30, 1986. The Tribunal has also directed the authorities to grant to the respondent all the consequential benefits..We see no reason to interfere with this order. The appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. The principles laid down with reference to similar office memorandum are applicable to the case on hand and the contrary argument raised by the appellant-Union of India is liable to be rejected.
14. In Coal India Limited & Ors. vs. Saroj Kumar Mishra, AIR 2007 SC 1706, this Court, in para 22, has held that a departmental proceeding is ordinarily said to be initiated only when a charge-sheet is issued.
15) In Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited and Others vs. Ananta Saha and Others, (2011) 5 SCC 142, this Court held as under:
27. There can be no quarrel with the settled legal proposition that the disciplinary proceedings commence only when a charge-sheet is issued to the delinquent employee. (Vide Union of India v. K.V.Jankiraman, (1991) 4 SCC 109 and UCO Bank v. Rajinder Lal Capoor, (2007) 6 SCC 694) We also reiterate that the disciplinary proceedings commence only when a charge sheet is issued. Departmental proceeding is normally said to be initiated only when a charge sheet is issued.
16. Learned ASG, by drawing our attention to the decision of this Court in Union of India and Another vs. R.S. Sharma, (2000) 4 SCC 394 submitted that in spite of decision of this Court in Jankiramans case (supra) in view of para 7 of the office memorandum and in the light of the fact that proceedings were initiated both criminal and departmentally, the High Court committed an error by overlooking para 7 of sealed cover process and contended that the direction issued by it cannot be sustained. We have carefully gone through the factual position and the ultimate ratio laid down by this Court in R.S. Sharmas case (surpa). Even though in the said decision, this Court has distinguished the decision in Jankiramans case (supra) and held that the same is not applicable to its case, in the light of the conditions mentioned in para 2 as well as para 7 of the office memorandum dated 14.09.1992 and of the categorical finding that none of the conditions mentioned therein has been fulfilled, we are of the view that the decision in R.S. Sharmas case (supra) is not helpful to the case of the appellant.
17. In the light of the above discussion and in view of factual position as highlighted in the earlier paras, we hold that the ratio laid down in Jankiramans case (supra) are fully applicable to the case on hand, hence we are in agreement with the ultimate decision of the High Court. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Union of India fails and the same is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. The conclusion of the aforementioned judgments of Honble Supreme Court is that:
(i) The disciplinary proceedings can be said to be pending against an employee only after the charge sheet/charge memo is issued (Union of India and Others Vs. K.V.Jankiraman and Ors (1991 (4) SCC 109)
(ii) The issue of charge sheet means the decision to initiate departmental proceedings and translation of same into action by dispatch of charge sheet leaving no doubt that the decision had been taken (Delhi Development Authority Vs. H.C.Khurana ( 1993) 3 SCC 196).
(iii) Where the first information report was registered by the CBI and on that basis a decision is taken by the competent authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings for imposition of major penalty on the respondent prior to the meeting of DPC, the applicability of sealed cover cannot be doubted. (Union of India Vs. Kewal Kumar (1993) 3 SCC 204).
Though the question does not arise for our determination in the present case, but invariably when the cases pertaining to the issue of sealed cover procedure come up for consideration, a doubt is raised regarding the ramification of the charge sheet filed in criminal Court/charge memo issued in the disciplinary proceeding issued in future, i.e. after the DPC and during the pendency of the court proceeding. In this regard a provision could be made in para 7 of OM dated 14.09.1992 which read thus:-
7. A Government servant, who is recommended for Promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee but in whose case any of the circumstances mentioned in para 2 above arise after the recommendations of the DPC are received but before he is actually promoted, will be considered as if his case had been placed in a sealed cover by the DPC. He shall not be promoted until he is completely exonerated of the charges against him and the provisions contained in this O.M. will be applicable in his case also. The issue was further addressed by Honble Supreme Court in Union of India and another Vs. R.S.Sharma (2000) 4 SCC 394). Para 11 to 17 of the judgment read thus:
11. Without conceding to the above position, Shri Mukul Rohtagi, Additional Solicitor General, adopted an alternative contention based on Paragraph 7 of the Sealed Cover Procedure which reads thus :
"Sealed cover applicable to officer coming under cloud before promotion :- A Government servant, who is recommended for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee but in whose case any of the circumstances mentioned in para 2 above arise after the recommendations of the DPC are received but before he is actually promoted, will be considered as if his case had been placed in a sealed cover by the DPC. He shall not be promoted until he is completely exonerated of the charges against him and the provisions contained in this O.M. will be applicable in his case also."
12. The conditions necessary to invoke the said clause are:
(1) Recommendations of the DPC should have been made for promoting the Government servant.
(2) After such recommendations and before he is actually promoted any, one of the circumstances in clause (ii) of the second paragraph (supra) should have arisen.
13. Two factual aspects are admitted. One is that respondent was not actually promoted even now. The other is that formal sanction has been accorded to prosecute him in the meanwhile. If that be so, paragraph 7 of the Sealed Cover Procedure would entirely apply and the recommendations made by the DPC in respect of the respondent have to remain in the sealed cover "until he is completely exonerated of the charges against him."
14. Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, learned counsel, adopted the contention that the situation would not have arisen as envisaged in paragraph 7 of the Sealed Cover Procedure if the appellants had complied with the conditions stipulated in the Office Memorandum dated 31-7-1991 either on that day itself or at least soon thereafter by promoting the respondent. Learned counsel contended that the Department had wilfully and deliberately avoided to comply with the said Office Memo dated 31-7-1979, and hence appellants should not be permitted to take advantage of their own wrong.
15. We are not impressed by the said arguments for two reasons. One is that, what the Department did not do is not the yardstick indicated in paragraph 7 of the Sealed Cover Procedure, what is mentioned therein is that it cannot apply to the Government servant who is not "actually promoted" by that time. Second is that, the stand taken up by the Department is that in spite of deletion of clause (iv) of the second paragraph, the recommendations of the DPC must remain in the sealed cover on account of the conditions specified in clause (iii) of the said paragraph by virtue of the operation of paragraph 7 thereof. We cannot say that the said stand was incorrect and, therefore, we are unable to blame the Department for not opening the sealed cover immediately after 31-7-1991.
16. Learned counsel for the respondent made an endeavour to contend that in the light of the decision of this Court in Union of India v. K. V. Janakiraman, (1991) 4 SCC 109 : (1991 AIR SCW 2276 : AIR 1991 SC 2010 : 1991 Lab IC 2045) the Sealed Cover Procedure can be resorted to only after Charge Memo is received or a charge-sheet is filed and that unless such an event had happened at the relevant time the Government employee cannot be denied of his promotion, if he is otherwise entitled to it. Learned counsel also submitted that Janakiraman was since followed in Union of India v. Dr. Sudha Salhan, (1998) 3 SCC 394 : (1998 AIR SCW 884 : AIR 1998 SC 1094 : 1998 Lab IC 957); Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana, (1999) 5 SCC 762 : (1999 AIR SCW 2529 : AIR 1999 SC 2407 : 1999 Lab IC 2819). The clauses of second paragraph of the Sealed Cover Procedure considered in Janakiraman were not those involved in the present case and hence that decision is of no avail to the respondent. In the other two decisions the facts warranted application of the ratio contained in Janakiraman. The added factor in these two cases was that the public servant concerned had been exonerated of the charges framed by the criminal Courts. In the present case the respondent is still facing the trial for serious offences, and hence the situation is different.
17. We may also point out, in this context, that in Delhi Development Authority v. H. C. Khurana, (1993) 2 JT (SC) 695 : (1993 AIR SCW 1417 : AIR 1993 SC 1488 : 1993 Lab IC 1143) and Union of India v. Kewal Kumar, (1993) JT (2) (SC) 705 : (1993 AIR SCW 1737 : AIR 1993 SC 1585 : 1993 Lab IC 1317) this Court found that the ratio in Janakiraman (1991 AIR SCW 2276 : AIR 1991 SC 2010 : 1999 Lab IC 2045) is applicable only to the situations similar to the cases discussed therein, and hence the Sealed Cover Procedure resorted to by the DPC in those two cases was upheld by this Court. Nevertheless, subsequently in Union of India & others Vs. Sangram Keshari Nayak (JT 2007 (6) SC 272), Honble Supreme Court viewed that if no departmental proceedings had been initiated against the Government servant by issuance of charge sheet at the time of promotion of his junior, the sealed cover procedure cannot be resorted to. In the present case, admittedly, the juniors of the applicant have already been promoted, thus occurrence of any of the circumstances mentioned in para 2 of OM dated 14.09.1992, on any date subsequent to the date of promotion of juniors of the applicants would not justify resorting to sealed cover, in any manner. The view taken by Honble Supreme Court in Sangram Keshari Nayak read thus:-
5. On or about 27.08.1999, one Shri G.P. Srivastava who was immediate junior to the respondent was promoted to the post of Senior Administrative Grade but only on 24.09.1999, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the respondent by issuance of a chargesheet.
6. An original application filed by the respondent before the Calcutta Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was eventually transferred to the Cuttack Bench, praying for a direction to the appellants to promote him to the said post from the date when his junior was appointed, was allowed by a judgment and order dated 19.08.2003. A writ petition filed by the appellants thereagainst has been dismissed by the High Court, by reason of the impugned judgment.
7. The Tribunal as also the High Court proceeded to determine the issue on the basis that the term "Government Servant under cloud" would be the employees against whom a chargesheet has been issued, relying on or on the basis of paragraph 2 of the said circular, the relevant portion whereof reads as under:
"2. At the time of consideration of the case of Government Servants for empanelment, details of Government Servants in the consideration zone for promotion falling under the following categories should be specifically brought to the notice of the Departmental Promotion Committee:
(i) Government Servants under suspension;
(ii) Government Servants in respect of whom a charge sheet has been issued and the disciplinary proceedings are pending;
(iii) Government Servants in respect of whom prosecution for a criminal charge is pending"
8. In arriving at its conclusion the High Court furthermore placed strong reliance upon a judgment of this Court in Union of India and Others v. K.V. Janakiraman and Others [(1991) 4 SCC 109].
9. Mr. R. Mohan, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the appellants would contend that the circular letter received wrong interpretation at the hands of the Tribunal and/ or the High Court inasmuch as upon a proper reading thereof it would appear that a complete procedure has been laid down therein providing for the mode and manner in which the cases of those officers against whom a charge is pending should be considered for promotion. Strong reliance in this behalf has been placed on Union of India and Another v. R.S. Sharma [(2000) 4 SCC 394], Delhi Development Authority v. H.C. Khurana [(1993) 3 SCC 196], and Union of India v. Kewal Kumar [(1993) 3 SCC 204].
10. Mr. S.K. Dholakia, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, would contend that paragraph 6 of the said circular must be read in the context of paragraph 2 thereof.
11. Promotion is not a fundamental right. Right to be considered for promotion, however, is a fundamental right. Such a right brings within its purview an effective, purposeful and meaningful consideration. Suitability or otherwise of the candidate concerned, however, must be left at the hands of the DPC, but the same has to be determined in terms of the rules applicable therefor. Indisputably, the DPC recommended the case of the respondent for promotion. On the day on which, it is accepted at the bar, the DPC held its meeting, no vigilance enquiry was pending. No decision was also taken by the employer that a departmental proceeding should be initiated against him.
12. Terms and conditions of an employee working under the Central Government are governed by the rules framed under the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India or under a statute. The right to be promoted to a next higher post can, thus, be curtailed only by reason of valid rules. Such a rule again, however, cannot be construed in a manner so as to curtail the right of promotion more than what was contemplated by law.
13. Whereas paragraph 6 of the said circular letter provides for a sealed cover procedure to be adopted by the DPC, the same has to be taken recourse to only in the event circumstances mentioned in paragraph 2 thereof arise after the recommendation of the DPC. The recommendations of the DPC, therefore, can be refused to be given effect to only inter ala when one or the other conditions mentioned in paragraph 2 of the said circular stand satisfied which in the instant case would mean that as against the respondent a chargesheet had been issued or, in other words, a disciplinary proceeding was pending. Admittedly, a chargesheet was issued as against him only on 24.09.1999.
14. Thus, there was no bar in promoting the respondent during the period 14.01.1999 to 27.08.1999. No material was placed before the DPC to take recourse to the sealed cover procedure. In fact, none existed at the material time. Paragraph 2 of the said circular specifically refers to submission of chargesheet as the cut-off date when a departmental proceeding can be said to have been initiated. Even otherwise such a meaning had been given thereto by this Court in K.V. Janakiraman (supra) holding:
"16 The sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after the charge-memo/charge-sheet is issued. The pendency of preliminary investigation prior to that stage will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure. We are in agreement with the Tribunal on this point. The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-authorities that when there are serious allegations and it takes time to collect necessary evidence to prepare and issue charge-memo/charge-sheet, it would not be in the interest of the purity of administration to reward the employee with a promotion, increment etc. does not impress us. The acceptance of this contention would result in injustice to the employees in many cases. As has been the experience so far, the preliminary investigations take an inordinately long time and particularly when they are initiated at the instance of the interested persons, they are kept pending deliberately. Many times they never result in the issue of any charge-memo/charge-sheet. If the allegations are serious and the authorities are keen in investigating them, ordinarily it should not take much time to collect the relevant evidence and finalise the charges. What is further, if the charges are that serious, the authorities have the power to suspend the employee under the relevant rules, and the suspension by itself permits a resort to the sealed cover procedure_"
15. Reliance placed by Mr. Mohan on R.S. Sharma (supra), in our opinion, does not advance the appellant's case. In that case, cases where sealed cover procedure were applicable were contained in paragraph 2 of the office memorandum dated 12.01.1988 which reads as under:
"Cases where 'Sealed Cover Procedure' applicable. At the time of consideration of the cases of government servants for promotion, details of government servants in the consideration zone for promotion falling under the following categories should be specifically brought to the notice of the Departmental Promotion Committee:
(i) government servants under suspension;
(ii) government servants in respect of whom disciplinary proceedings are pending or a decision has been taken to initiate disciplinary proceedings;
(iii) government servants in respect of whom prosecution for a criminal charge is pending or a sanction for prosecution has been issued or a decision has been taken to accord sanction for prosecution;
(iv) government servants against whom an investigation on serious allegations of corruption, bribery or similar grave misconduct is in progress either by CBI or any agency, departmental or otherwise."
(Emphasis supplied)
16. Serious allegations of financial misdemeanours were made against the respondent therein. Central Bureau of Investigation took up investigation. He was suspended on 10.03.1988. Although the said order of suspension was revoked, investigation continued. The DPC considered his case for promotion on 3.04.1991 and resorted to sealed cover procedure. Only in the aforementioned situation, K.V. Janakiraman (supra) and other decisions following the same stood distinguished opining that paragraph 7 of the said office memorandum would be attracted, which is in the following terms:
"Sealed cover applicable to an officer coming under cloud before promotion ._A government servant, who is recommended for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee but in whose case any of the circumstances mentioned in para 2 above arise after the recommendations of DPC are received but before he is actually promoted, will be considered as if his case had been placed in a sealed cover by DPC. He shall not be promoted until he is completely exonerated of the charges against him and the provisions contained in this OM will be applicable in his case also."
It was held:
"One is that, what the Department did not do is not the yardstick indicated in para 7 of the Sealed Cover Procedure, what is mentioned therein is that it cannot apply to the government servant who is not "actually promoted" by that time. Second is that, the stand taken up by the Department is that in spite of deletion of clause ( iv ) of the second para, the recommendations of DPC must remain in the sealed cover on account of the conditions specified in clause ( iii ) of the said paragraph by virtue of the operation of para 7 thereof. We cannot say that the said stand was incorrect and, therefore, we are unable to blame the Department for not opening the sealed cover immediately after 31-7-1991."
17. Therein H.C. Khurana (supra) and Kewal Kumar (supra) were noticed.
18. In H.C. Khurana (supra), the question was as to what would be the meaning of the word ' issued' when a disciplinary proceeding had been initiated by framing the chargesheet and the same had been despatched. Paragraph 2 of the circular letter in question was similar to the case of R.S. Sharma (supra). It is in that context, what would be the meaning of the word 'issued' when the decision has been taken to initiate disciplinary proceeding came up for consideration. As the circular contained a provision of that nature which is absent in the present case, the said decision, in our opinion, also has no application in the instant case.
19. For the self-same reasons, the decision of this Court in Kewal Kumar (supra) is also not attracted.
20. This aspect of the matter has recently been considered in Coal India Ltd. & Ors. v. Saroj Kumar Mishra [(2007) 5 SCALE 724].
21. We, therefore, are of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgments. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee assessed at Rs. 25,000/-.
12. In view of the aforementioned, these OAs are disposed of with direction to respondents to verify;
Whether the disciplinary authority had taken any decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the applicants or charge sheet was filed in the criminal cases registered against the applicants in OA No. 352/2015 and OA 254/2015 in the Court before the date of the DPC. In the event, such decision was taken by the competent authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings or the charge sheet was found to be filed in the Court against them, the application of sealed cover on the recommendation of DPC regarding suitability of the applicants for promotion would be justified. In the absence of specific decision by the disciplinary authority to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the applicants before the date of DPC the sealed cover would not be justified. If no decision was found to be taken by the disciplinary authority before the date of DPC to initiate disciplinary action against the applicants and no charge sheet was found to be filed against applicants in OA No. 352/2015 and OA 254/2015 in the Criminal Court, the sealed cover would be opened and the recommendation of the DPC would be acted upon. The entire exercise should be completed within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
(V.N.Gaur ) (A.K.Bhardwaj )
Member (A) Member (J)
sk