Vivek Singh Thakur, J
1. Petitioner is serving as Deputy Ranger in the Himachal Pradesh Forest Department. In response to the process initiated for promotion to the post of
Forest Range Officer, on 1.2.2020, petitioner made a request for considering his name for such promotion, but he was not promoted, despite making
further request on 9.10.2020, due to pendency of criminal case against him, in pursuant to FIR No.11 of 2018, dated 11.2.2018, in Police Station
Kasauli, District Solan, wherein he was arrested and remained in police custody with effect from 12.2.2018 to 15.2.2018 and thereafter he was
detained in judicial custody till 3.3.2018. After his release, he joined the duty on 5.3.2018, and he was actually reinstated by the competent authority
vide order dated 29.3.2018. Chargesheet against the petitioner has been filed in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasauli on 28.6.2018
and supplementary chargesheet was filed on 24.9.2018, which is pending adjudication and charges have not been framed against the petitioner till date.
2. Meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was held on 14.12.2020 and for pendency of the criminal proceedings, the DPC has
adopted Sealed Cover Procedure with respect to the petitioner.
3. Present petition has been filed, seeking direction to the respondents-State to promote the petitioner with effect from 24.12.2020, the date on which
respondents No.3 to 22, who are his juniors, have been promoted.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in present case only chargesheet has been presented in Court and charges have not been
framed and in view of this status of criminal case, there was no occasion for the DPC to adopt Sealed Cover Procedure, with respect to petitioner. He
has placed reliance on pronouncement of Supreme Court of India in Union of India & others v. K.V. Jankiraman & others, (1991) 4 SCC 109 and
pronouncements of this High Court in CWP(T) No.1850 of 2008, titled as Surinder Singh v. State of H.P. and another, decided on 4.5.2010; and CWP
No.1529 of 2019, titled as Manoj Thakur v. State of Himachal Pradesh & others, decided on 26.12.2019. Whereas, adoption of Sealed Cover
Procedure by the DPC for considering the candidature of the petitioner has been justified by learned Deputy Advocate General by putting reliance on
pronouncements of Supreme Court of India in K.V. Jankiraman’s case; Delhi Development Authority, (1993) 3 SCC 196; and Harsh Kumar
Sharma, IFS v. State of Punjab & another, (2017) 4 SCC 366; and that of Delhi High Court in Union of Inida v. V. Appalla Raju, 2017 SCC OnLine
Del 6914 (WP (Civil) No.8758 of 2014, decided on 30.1.2017); and Sidharth Rath v. Central Warehousing Corporation, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7829
(W.P.(C) No.3025/2017, decided on 10.4.2017), with contention that ratio of K.V. Jankiraman’s case stands clarified and explained in Harsh
Kumar Sharma’s case.
5. Procedure for consideration of cases where disciplinary/Court proceedings, etc., are pending, has been detailed in Hand Book on Personnel
Matters, Vol-I (Second Edition), in Chapter 16 at Para 16.32, wherein it is mentioned that in supersession of all earlier instructions, the Government of
India has issued revised instructions in this behalf on 14.2.1992, which have been adopted on 3.12.1992 for application to employees/Officers of
Himachal Pradesh. These instructions have been reproduced in the Hand Book on Personnel Matters. These instructions also provide procedure for
six monthly review of sealed cover cases and procedure for adhoc promotion.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in present case, Sealed Cover Procedure was adopted in the DPC on 14. 12.2020 and six months
have elapsed on 14.6.2020, but till date no six monthly review has been undertaken by the Department nor procedure for adhoc promotion has been
undertaken, with respect to the petitioner, despite the fact that promotion of the petitioner would not be against public interest and the case registered
against the petitioner is not related to his act, conduct or work related to his departmental duties, and that he is going to retire on 30.9.2021, without
promotion for which he is otherwise entitled.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is going to retire on 30.9.2021 and, therefore, he is confining his claim only to the
extent that review DPC with respect to petitioner be held at the earliest and candidature of the petitioner be considered for regular promotion or at
least for adhoc promotion as the petitioner, except for criminal proceedings pending in the Court, is eligible for promotion.
8. Without going into the merit, with respect to adoption of Sealed Cover Procedure, leaving the said issue open, but keeping in view the submissions
of the learned counsel for the petitioner, limiting his prayer only for direction to hold six monthly review and to consider the case of the petitioner for
regular/adhoc promotion, present petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents-State to hold six monthly review on or before 15.9.2021 and
consider the case of petitioner for promotion/adhoc promotion in consonance with the instructions (OM), dated 14.9.1992, and procedure referred in
Hand Book on Personnel Matters Vol-I, referred supra, and in case the petitioner is found entitled for promotion/adhoc promotion, the benefit thereof
to the petitioner shall be extended before his retirement, preferably on or before 21.9.2021, and the decision taken for or against the petitioner shall be
intimated to him immediately.
9. Petition stands disposed of, so also pending application, if any.
The parties are at liberty to use downloaded copy of this order from the web-page of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh and the authorities
concerned shall not insist for certified copy, however, they may verify the same from the Web-site of the High Court.
