Delhi HC bars premature use of sealed cover in promotion cases

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the controversial “sealed cover” procedure cannot be invoked prematurely in promotion matters, even when central agencies have initiated serious investigations. A Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Madhu Jain clarified that the procedure is permissible only after the issuance of a charge-sheet, the commencement of criminal prosecution, or the suspension of an officer.

The case arose after a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) convened on March 18, 2024, to consider officers eligible for regular promotion to the post of Joint Commissioner. The respondent’s case was kept in a sealed cover by authorities, despite his contention that such an action contravened the law laid down in another case.

The respondent had faced a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) FIR registered on May 11, 2023, and an Enforcement Directorate ECIR under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Draft charge-sheets were prepared in 2022, while allegations of forged caste certificate and misconduct were still under investigation.

However, he argued that no charge-sheet had been issued in either disciplinary or criminal proceedings, nor was he under suspension. Citing Office Memorandums from 1992 and 2004, he asserted that sealed cover proceedings were impermissible under these circumstances. Aggrieved, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).

By order dated 17 December 2024, the Tribunal directed authorities to open the sealed cover, grant the respondent promotion with effect from 1 January 2021 if recommended by the UPSC, and place his name appropriately in the seniority list dated 28 March 2024 of Joint Commissioners of Customs and Indirect Taxes.

The Union of India challenged the Tribunal’s order through a writ petition. It was submitted that FIRs and ECIRs had been registered, draft charge-sheets for major penalties were prepared on 27 September and 27 December 2022, and complaints regarding submission of a forged caste certificate and attempts to access confidential investigation information were still under probe.

The respondent countered that the sealed cover procedure could not apply as the required pre-conditions were absent. “No charge-sheet in any disciplinary proceedings has been issued, nor has any charge-sheet in a criminal prosecution been filed against me,” he submitted. He further stated that he had not been placed under suspension. Authorities had themselves admitted that issuance of a charge memo was kept in abeyance on the advice of the CVC. The FIR was still under investigation, with the CBI seeking an additional three months to complete it.

The court observed that as on the date of the DPC, no departmental proceedings were pending against the respondent, and no charge-sheet had been issued either in disciplinary or criminal matters. The Bench held that “mere pendency of an FIR or preliminary investigation cannot justify the application of the sealed cover procedure.”

It emphasised that sealed cover can be invoked only after a charge memo or criminal charge-sheet has been issued, or in cases of suspension. The court also found the petitioners’ reliance on Kewal Kumar and Syed Naseem Zahir misplaced, as those cases involved already issued charge-sheets or concluded proceedings.