The Supreme Court of India has ruled that the mere grant of prosecution sanction is insufficient to justify invoking the sealed cover procedure for government promotions. The judgment, delivered by a bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice R. Mahadevan, emphasized that the issuance of a charge memo or charge sheet is essential to trigger the sealed cover process for promotions, clarifying the legal position in the case Union of India vs. Doly Loy (Civil Appeal No. 8387 of 2013).
Background of the Case
The case centered around Doly Loy, a senior officer in the Income Tax Department, who was denied promotion to the post of Commissioner of Income Tax in 2007. Despite being eligible, the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) withheld his promotion recommendations in a sealed cover due to an FIR registered against him in 2001, which included charges of conspiracy and corruption.
Loy challenged the denial of his promotion, arguing that no formal criminal charge had been filed against him at the time of the DPC meeting. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) ruled in his favor, directing the government to open the sealed cover and grant him his promotion if found suitable. The Union of India appealed the decision to the Delhi High Court, which upheld the CAT’s order. The government then filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Issues
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether a mere grant of prosecution sanction, without the issuance of a charge sheet or charge memo, could justify the invocation of the sealed cover procedure. The government, represented by Senior Counsel Wasim Qadri, argued that the existence of a sanction for prosecution should be sufficient grounds for withholding promotions under the sealed cover process.
According to the Office Memorandum (OM) dated September 14, 1992, the sealed cover procedure can be applied in three scenarios:
1. When a government servant is under suspension.
2. When a charge sheet has been issued and disciplinary proceedings are pending.
3. When prosecution for a criminal charge is pending.
The government’s counsel contended that the prosecution was effectively pending once the sanction for prosecution had been granted. However, Loy’s counsel maintained that without a formal charge sheet or charge memo, there was no valid ground for invoking the sealed cover process.
Supreme Court’s Observations and Ruling
In its ruling, the Supreme Court rejected the government’s argument, stating that the mere grant of prosecution sanction does not amount to a pending criminal charge. The court emphasized that the sealed cover procedure could only be invoked once a charge sheet or charge memo had been issued. Citing its earlier decision in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman (1991), the court held:
“The sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after the charge memo or charge sheet is issued. The mere pendency of investigation or grant of prosecution sanction is insufficient to adopt this procedure.”
The court clarified that while a government servant could be denied promotion if formal charges were pending, preliminary investigations or unsubstantiated allegations could not justify indefinite delays in promotions. The judgment pointed out that Loy’s case did not meet the criteria for the sealed cover procedure, as the charge sheet was filed after the DPC meeting.
Justice Mehta, delivering the court’s decision, observed:
“To hold that mere sanction for prosecution amounts to pending prosecution would result in serious injustice, leading to indefinite withholding of promotions based on unsubstantiated allegations or delays in investigation.”
