Siddharth Pitabas Nayak v. Union of India & Ors.

13. Since Mr. Sanglikar has submitted that the Respondent-Insurance Company, being a Public Sector Undertaking of the Central Government, follows Rules, Regulations and instructions issued by the DoPT, it would be therefore necessary to consider the relevant instructions issued by the DoPT on the issue of Neeta Sawant 9/29 WP-1009-2023(Resd.)(fc) adoption of sealed cover procedure in case of officers who come under cloud.

14. The Government of India, Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) issued Office Memorandum dated January 30, 1982 on the subject of promotion of officers in whose cases the sealed cover procedure had been followed but against whom disciplinary/court proceedings were pending for a long time. The Memorandum stated that according to the existing instructions, cases of officers (a) who are under suspension or (b) against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending or a decision has been taken by the competent disciplinary authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings or, (c) against whom prosecution has been launched in a court of law or sanction for prosecution has been issued, are considered for promotion by the DPC at the appropriate time but the findings of the Committee are kept in a sealed cover to be opened after the conclusion of the disciplinary/court proceedings. While the findings are kept in the sealed cover, the vacancy which might have gone to the officer concerned is filled only on an officiating basis. If on the conclusion of the departmental/court proceedings, the officer concerned is completely exonerated, and where he is under suspension it is also held that the suspension was wholly unjustified, the sealed cover is opened and the recommendations of the DPC are acted upon. If the officer could have been promoted earlier, he is promoted to the post which is filled on an officiating basis, the officiating arrangement being terminated. On his promotion, the officer gets the benefit of seniority and fixation of pay Neeta Sawant 10/29 WP-1009-2023(Resd.)(fc) on a notional basis with reference to the date on which he would have been promoted in the normal course, but for the pending disciplinary/ court proceedings. However, no arrears of salary are paid in respect of the period prior to the date of actual promotion. The Memorandum then dealt with eventuality of delay in pendency of proceedings.

15. In pursuance of Apex Court judgment in Union of India Vs. Tajinder Singh, (1991) 4 SCC 129, DoPT revised the OM dated January 30, 1982 and issued revised instructions by Office Memorandum dated January 12, 1988 governing the cases of Officers under cloud at the time of consideration of their cases for promotion. The relevant portion of DoPT OM dated January 12, 1988 reads thus: “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 sanction for prosecution has been issued or a decision has been taken to accord sanction for prosecution; (iv)Government servants against whom an investigation or serious allegations of corruption, Neeta Sawant 11/29 WP-1009-2023(Resd.)(fc) bribery or similar grave misconduct is in progress either by the CBI or any agency, departmental or otherwise.”

16. Thus under the 1988 OM issued by the DoPT, Sealed Cover Procedure can be adopted even in respect of Government Servants against whom an investigation of serious allegations of corruption, bribery or similar grave misconduct was in progress. Furthermore, it was permissible to adopt sealed cover procedure against Government Servants in respect of whom disciplinary proceedings were pending or a decision was taken to initiate disciplinary proceedings.

17. After issuance of the OM dated January 12, 1988, an Office Note was issued on July 31, 1991 deleting clause-(iv) from second para of the OM dated January 12, 1988. Thus, the eventuality of pendency of investigations on serious allegations was deleted for adoption of sealed cover procedure. By Office Note dated July 31, 1991, following clarifications were however issued: “It is further clarified that:-

(i) All cases kept in sealed cover on date of this O.M. on account of conditions obtainable in para 2(iv) of the O.M. dated 12.1.1988 will be opened. If the official had been found fit and recommended by DPC, he will be notionally promoted, from the date his immediate junior had been promoted. The pay of the higher post would of course, be admissible only on assumption of actual charge in view of provisions of FR 17(1). (Since only officiating Neeta Sawant 12/29 WP-1009-2023(Resd.)(fc) arrangements could be made against the vacancies available because of cases of senior officials being in sealed cover, there may not be any difficulty in terminating some officiating arrangements if necessary and giving promotion in such cases).

(ii) If any case is in a sealed cover on account of any of the other conditions mentioned in para 2(I) to 2(iii) of the O.M. dated 12.1.88, the case will continue to be in the sealed cover.

(iii) On opening of the sealed cover because of deletion of para 2(iv) if an officer is found to have been recommended as unfit by the DPC no further action would be necessary.

18. Thus after issuance of the Office Note dated July 31, 1991, only first three eventualities specified under Clauses (i), (ii) and

(iii) of OM dated January 12, 1988 were recognised for adoption of

19. The provisions of DoPT OM dated January 12, 1988 came up for interpretation before the Apex Court in celebrated judgment in K.V. Jankiraman (supra). The Apex Court held in paras-5 and 6 of the judgment as under:

5. 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 & Anr. v. Tajinder Singh, [ 1986] 2 Scale 860 decided on September 26, 1986, the Government of India in the Deptt. of Personnel & 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 30th Neeta Sawant 13/29 WP-1009-2023(Resd.)(fc) January, 1982 referred to above. There is no difference in the instructions contained in this and the earlier aforesaid Memorandum of January 30, 1982, except that this Memorandum provides in paragraph 4 for a six-monthly review of the pending proceedings against the Government servant where the proceedings are still at the stage of investigation and if as a result of the review, the appointing authority comes to the conclusion on the basis Of material and evidence collected in the investigation till that time, that there is no prima facie case in initiating disciplinary action or sanctioning prosecution, the sealed cover is directed to be opened and the employee is directed to be given his due promotion with reference to the position assigned to him by the DPC. 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 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. These differences in the two Memoranda have no bearing on the questions to be answered.

6. 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 chargesheet 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 Neeta Sawant 14/29 WP-1009-2023(Resd.)(fc) 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/chargesheet. 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. 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; (3)... (4)… (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. ' ' 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 Neeta Sawant 15/29 WP-1009-2023(Resd.)(fc) 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. We, therefore, repel the challenge of the appellantauthorities to the said finding of the Full Bench of the Tribunal.” (emphasis added)

20. Thus in K.V. Jankiraman, the Apex Court held that sealed cover procedure can be adopted only in a case where charge memo/chargesheet has already been issued to the employee and that pendency of preliminary investigation is not a ground for adoption of

21. To implement the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of K.V. Jankiraman, the DoPT issued OM dated September 14, 2022 in supersession of earlier instructions (including OM dated January 12, 1988) and revised instructions were issued relating to cases of promotions of Government Servants against whom disciplinary/court proceedings are pending or whose conduct is under investigation. The opening portion of the OM, which seeks to supersede all earlier instructions reads thus: “The undersigned is directed to refer to Department of Personnel & Training OM No.22011/2/86/Estt. (A) dated 12th January, 1988 and subsequent instructions issued from time to time on the above Neeta Sawant 16/29 WP-1009-2023(Resd.)(fc) subject and to say that 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 under investigation have been reviewed carefully. Government have 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 view and in supersession of all the earlier instructions on the subject (referred to in the margin), the procedure to be followed in this regard by the authorities concerned is laid down in the subsequent paras of this OM for their guidance.”

22. After superseding the earlier instructions, the DoPT issued following instructions for adoption of sealed cover procedure:

23. Thus under the OM dated September 14, 1992 issued in pursuance of the judgment of the Apex Court in K.V. Jankiraman, Sealed Cover Procedure can be adopted only in respect of the government servants who are under suspension, against whom a chargesheet has been issued for departmental proceedings or in respect of whom prosecution for criminal charge is pending. It would be pertinent to note the wordings of Clause-(ii) of para-2 of the OM which uses words ‘in respect of whom chargesheet has been issued and the disciplinary proceedings are pending’. Thus a marked departure is taken by the DoPT in comparison to its earlier OM dated January 12, 1988 which permitted adoption of sealed cover procedure even when a decision is taken to initiate disciplinary proceedings. With the issuance of the OM dated September 14, 1992, it is now not permissible to adopt sealed cover procedure only on the ground of contemplation of disciplinary proceeding. The eventuality of pendency of investigations in respect of a serious charge was already deleted by the Office Note dated July 31, 1991. Thus to adopt sealed cover procedure, now it is mandatory that chargesheet is actually issued to the Government Servant in question.

24. There is no dispute to the position that the DoPT, OM dated September 14, 1992 issued in pursuance of the judgment of the Neeta Sawant 18/29 WP-1009-2023(Resd.)(fc) Apex Court in K.V. Jankiraman continues to hold the field even today. So far as three eventualities specified in para-2 of the OM dated September 14, 1992 are concerned, same have not undergone any change. Therefore, applying the provisions of OM dated September 14, 1992, adoption of sealed cover procedure on the basis of vigilance enquiries or proposal for initiation of disciplinary proceedings or investigation is now no longer permissible.

25. Mr. Sanglikar, has made strenuous efforts to impress upon us that the law declared by the Apex Court in K.V. Janakiraman has subsequently been diluted in various decisions, on which he places reliance. We therefore proceed to examine judgments cited by Mr. Sanglikar.

26. H.C. Khurana (supra) is relied upon to suggest that the principles laid down in K.V. Janakiraman have been diluted by the Apex Court. In that case, the Respondent-H.C. Khurana was employed as an Executive Engineer in Delhi Development Authority. A preliminary memo was issued to him on November 6 1985 alleging some irregularities in construction works. A chargesheet was framed on July 11, 1990. The chargesheet was despatched to the Respondent therein on 13 July 1990. The chargesheet could not be served as the Respondent therein proceeded on leave. In the meantime, the DPC was convened on November 28, 1990 and the chargesheet came to be personally served on the Respondent therein only on January 25,

1991. In the light of this factual position, the issue before the Apex Neeta Sawant 19/29 WP-1009-2023(Resd.)(fc) Court was whether sealed cover procedure could be adopted before the date of actual service of the chargesheet ? The Apex Court held in para-9 as under:

27. Thus, the issue before the Apex Court in H.C. Khurana was altogether different. In that case, the chargesheet was Neeta Sawant 20/29 WP-1009-2023(Resd.)(fc) despatched for service on 13 July 1990 but the same could be served only on July 25, 1991. Between the said two dates, the DPC had met on November 28, 1990. The Apex Court held that the delay in service of the chargesheet is immaterial and the date of despatch thereof is the relevant date to be treated as the date of initiation of disciplinary proceeding. We are therefore unable to agree with the submission of Mr. Sanglikar that the Apex Court has diluted the law expounded in K.V. Janakiraman in its judgment in H.C. Khurana.

28. Kewal Kumar (supra) is relied upon by Mr. Sanglikar to suggest that the law expounded in K.V. Janakiraman has undergone further change. To examine the correctness of Mr. Sanglikar’s submissions, it would be necessary to consider the factual background, as well as, the exact issue involved in Kewal Kumar. In that case, the DPC met on November 23, 1989 for considering the case of the Respondent therein for promotion but adopted sealed cover procedure on the ground of earlier decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings taken on November 20, 1989. The chargsheet was actually served on the Respondent therein on August 1, 1990. Issuance of chargesheet was based on FIR registered on September 30, 1988 by the CBI. Thus, the case related to the period when the instructions issued vide OM dated January 12, 1988 were in vogue. Infact the Apex Court has noted the provisions of DoPT, OM dated 12 January 1988 in para-6 of the judgment for arriving at the conclusion that sealed cover procedure was properly adopted. Paras-6 and 7 in Kewal Kumar reads thus: Neeta Sawant 21/29 WP-1009-2023(Resd.)(fc) “6. We may also advert to another aspect of this case. In Para 2 of the office Memorandum NO. 22011/2/86-Estt. (A) dated 12.1.1988 issued by the Department of Personnel & training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India, on the subject of procedure and guidelines to be followed in such cases, indicating the situations in which the scaled cover procedure is to be followed, clause (iv) specifies another category. Clause (iv) relates to '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. The fact that the F.I.R. was registered by the C.B.I., and on communication of the same to the departmental superiors a decision had been taken to initiate disciplinary proceedings for imposition of a major penalty, against the respondent in the present case, brings this case squarely within the ambit of clause (iv) of the guidelines, in addition to clause (ii), thereof.

7. Following of the sealed cover procedure in the present case was, therefore, fully justified and the Tribunal committed an error in interfering with that action of the Government.”

29. Thus, Kewal Kumar is decided by interpreting the provisions of DoPT OM dated January 12, 1988 which permitted both the eventualities of decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings as well as investigation of serious allegations as a ground for adoption of Sealed Cover Procedure. Furthermore, the FIR was lodged against the Respondent therein on September 30, 1988 i.e. before the DPC meeting dated November 23, 1989. Thus, the judgment in Kewal Kumar is clearly distinguishable. Neeta Sawant 22/29 WP-1009-2023(Resd.)(fc)

30. Manoj Kumar Singh (supra) is relied upon by Mr. Sanglikar in support of his contention that pendency of vigilance proceedings is a valid ground for adoption of Sealed Cover Procedure. Manoj Kumar Singh involved interpretation instructions issued by the Coal India Limited which apparently had its own instructions to deal with cases of officers under cloud. Coal India Ltd. had issued Office Memoranda dated June 19, 1979 and June 27, 1979 which provided that an executive against whom departmental/vigilance proceedings are pending can be promoted only after completion of proceedings. After considering the said instructions, the Apex Court held in paras-5 and 6 as under: “5. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred this appeal by special leave. The relevant rule as has been quoted in the office memorandums dated 19-6-1979 and 27-6-1979 is: “An executive, who has been placed under suspension pending inquiry and/or against whom departmental/vigilance proceedings are pending will be promoted, if selected and placed in the select list by a DPC, only after completion of the proceedings and his complete exoneration of the charges. Such an officer shall be promoted in the first vacancy that may be available immediately after his complete exoneration with prospective effect.” The rule makes it clear that even if vigilance proceedings are pending, the selection can be made only after completion of the proceedings and the complete exoneration from the charges.

6. From the uncontroverted statement in the counteraffidavit, it is clear that the vigilance proceedings were Neeta Sawant 23/29 WP-1009-2023(Resd.)(fc) pending against the appellant much prior to the date on which DPC first promoted the appellant's juniors.”

31. As against specific instructions issued by Coal India Ltd., the Respondent-Insurance Company has not issued its own instructions governing the cases of promotion of officers coming under cloud. On the contrary, Mr. Sangalikar has specifically asserted that the Respondent-Insurance Company follows the Office Memoranda issued by the DoPT from time to time. Therefore, the present case would be governed by the DoPT O.M. dated September 14, 1992 which does not recognise pendency of vigilance enquiry as a ground for adoption of sealed cover procedure. Also of relevance is the fact that the concerned instructions by Coal India Ltd were issued during the year 1979 i.e. before pronouncement of the judgment by the Apex Court in K. V. Jankiraman. Therefore, the judgment in Manoj Kumar Singh is also distinguishable.

32. Strong reliance is placed by Mr. Sanglikar on the judgment of the Apex Court in R.S. Sharma (supra). According to Mr. Sanglikar, the judgment in R.S. Sharma delivered by three judges Bench of the Apex Court in the year 2000 is the final word on the subject which permits adoption of sealed cover procedure even in a case where disciplinary proceedings are contemplated or investigation into serious allegations are pending. We therefore consider the factual background as well as the exact issue involved before the Apex Court in R.S. Sharma. In that case, FIR was registered on March 10, 1988. Neeta Sawant 24/29 WP-1009-2023(Resd.)(fc) The Respondent therein was placed under suspension. Though the suspension was revoked, the CBI continued with the investigations and applied for issuance of prosecution sanction. In the meantime, the DCP met and deferred his case on account of pendency of investigations. The Respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal which passed interim order for consideration of his case for promotion. The DPC accordingly met on April 3, 1991 but kept its recommendations in sealed cover in accordance with the provisions of the DoPT O.M. dated January 12, 1988. The Apex Court considered the provisions of the DoPT O.M. dated January 12, 1988 as well as Office Note dated July 31, 1991 dealing with eventualities of pendency of investigations in Clause (iv) and proceeded to examine if deletion of eventuality of Clause (iv) by Office Note dated July 31, 1991 could result in opening of sealed cover. However, at that stage it was brought to the notice of the Apex Court that approval was granted for prosecution sanction on July 9,

1991. It was therefore contended on behalf of the Government of India that though DPC might have recommended case of Respondent therein for promotion on April 3, 1991, he came under cloud before his actual promotion on account of issuance of prosecution sanction on July 9, 1999. The Apex Court therefore proceeded to consider instructions in cases where Government servant comes under cloud after recommendations of DPC but before the actual promotion. It accordingly held in paras-11, 12 and 13 as under: “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: Neeta Sawant 25/29 WP-1009-2023(Resd.)(fc) 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.”

33. Thus the issue involved before the Apex Court in R.S. Sharma was altogether different. In that case, the Apex Court has Neeta Sawant 26/29 WP-1009-2023(Resd.)(fc) considered and decided the issue whether an officer can be ppromoted in whose case, the eventuality occurs between the date of DPC recommendations and the date of his actual promotion. Therefore, the judgment in R.S. Sharma would have no application to the present case.

34. Mr. Sanglikar has also placed heavy reliance on the judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court in Naresh K. Gupta (supra) contending that the fact situation in that case is almost identical to the present one. We therefore proceed to examine his contention. In that case, DPC met in October 2001 and recommended Respondent therein for promotion. However, before the Officer could actually be promoted, chargesheet was issued on December 3, 2002. The coordinate bench of this Court followed the decision in R.S. Sharma and held that since the officer came under cloud before he could be actually promoted, the sealed cover procedure was rightly followed. True it is that the junior officer of the Respondent therein was promoted on June 14, 2002 during the period from DPC meeting and date of issuance of chargesheet. However, this Court does not appear to have delved into the issue of change in instructions effected vide OM dated January 12, 1988, Office Note dated July 31, 1991 and OM dated September 14, 1992. Therefore, the judgment of this Court in Naresh K. Gupta cannot be cited in support of the proposition that sealed cover procedure can be adopted in every case of pendency of vigilance enquiry or contemplated disciplinary Neeta Sawant 27/29 WP-1009-2023(Resd.)(fc) proceedings. Therefore, the reliance of Mr. Sanglikar on the judgment in Naresh K. Gupta is of little assistance to this case.

35. After considering the sound exposition of law by the Apex Court in the judgments discussed above, the conclusions deducible therefrom are as under:

(i) Sealed cover procedure can be adopted only when charge memo/chargesheet is actually issued by the Disciplinary Authority.

(ii) Sealed cover procedure cannot be adopted on the ground of pendency of vigilance enquiry or proposed initiation of disciplinary proceedings.

(iii) The date of actual service of chargesheet is irrelevant and the date on which the chargesheet is despatched for service is the relevant date for adoption of sealed cover procedure.

(iv) Sealed covered procedure can also be adopted where officer is not under cloud on the date of meeting of the DPC but comes under cloud before he is actually promoted.

36. We are therefore unable to accept Mr. Sangalikar’s contention that the law on the subject of adoption of sealed cover procedure has undergone any change after the judgment of the Apex Neeta Sawant 28/29 WP-1009-2023(Resd.)(fc) Court in K. V. Jankiraman. The eventualities specified in DoPT OM dated September 14, 1992 issued towards implementation of judgment in K. V. Jankiraman, for adoption of sealed cover procedure continue to apply even today.

37. The present case is not covered by any of the eventualities specified on DoPT OM dated September 14, 1992. The exact date of DPC meeting is not disclosed by the Respondent- Insurance Company in its affidavit-in-reply. The promotion order is however issued on September 30, 2021 and it appears that the DPC met somewhere in the month of September 2021. Admittedly on the date of DPC meeting, or on the date of effecting promotions, Memorandum of chargesheet was not issued to Petitioner. He was neither suspended nor prosecution for a criminal case was started against him. Therefore he was not covered by any of the eventualities specified in para-2 of the OM dated September 14, 1992. In these circumstances, adoption of sealed cover procedure by the Respondent- Insurance Company in the present case was not warranted.

38. The Writ Petition accordingly succeeds. The Respondent-Insurance Company is directed to open the sealed cover and process the recommendations made by the DPC in respect of the promotion of Petitioner to the post of Deputy Manager (Scale-III). If the DPC has recommended his case for promotion, he be promoted to Neeta Sawant 29/29 WP-1009-2023(Resd.)(fc) the post of Deputy Manager (Scale-III) w.e.f. September 30, 2021 with all consequential benefits.

39. Writ Petition is allowed in the above terms. Rule is made absolute. (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, J.)