Delhi High Court Upholds Tribunal's Order: Sealed Cover Procedure for Promotions Deemed Unjustified
Court affirms promotion for Sameer Wankhede despite pending investigations, citing lack of formal charges or disciplinary proceedings.
News Report:
In a significant judgment dated August 28, 2025, the Delhi High Court dismissed the petition filed by the Union of India challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in the case concerning Sameer Dnyandev Wankhede. The court upheld the tribunal's decision to direct the opening of the sealed cover pertaining to Wankhede's promotion. The tribunal had ruled that the sealed cover procedure could not be justified as no charge memo in disciplinary proceedings or charge sheet in a criminal case had been issued against Wankhede.
The case arose after the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) kept Wankhede's promotion case in a sealed cover, citing the registration of an FIR by the CBI and an ECIR by the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Despite these investigations, the court found that none of the three conditions required for resorting to the sealed cover procedure were met, as laid out in the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, and reiterated in government memorandums from 1992 and 2004.
The court noted that the investigations were still in preliminary stages with no formal charges filed, and emphasized that the mere pendency of investigations cannot justify withholding promotions through sealed cover. The tribunal's order, directing the opening of the sealed cover and granting Wankhede promotion, aligns with established legal principles that require formal charges or disciplinary proceedings to be initiated before adopting such a procedure.
The judgment reiterates the Supreme Court's stance that serious allegations alone do not suffice for sealed cover procedures, emphasizing that authorities have the power to suspend employees, which would warrant a sealed cover. However, in Wankhede's case, he had not been suspended, and no charge-sheet had been filed, rendering the sealed cover procedure inapplicable.
The court's decision marks a reaffirmation of the legal principles governing promotions and disciplinary actions, ensuring that employees are not denied promotions based on preliminary investigations alone. The Union of India’s reliance on past judgments was found inapplicable given the unique circumstances of Wankhede's case, where no formal proceedings had commenced.
The ruling directs compliance with the tribunal's order within four weeks, setting a precedent for similar cases where promotions are withheld due to pending investigations without formal charges.
Bottom Line:
Service Law - Sealed cover procedure for promotions - Cannot be followed unless charge memo in disciplinary proceedings or charge sheet in a criminal case is issued - Mere pendency of FIR or ECIR or preliminary investigation does not justify resorting to sealed cover procedure.
Statutory provision(s): Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Office Memorandum dated 14.09.1992, K.V. Jankiraman case (1991) 4 SCC 109
Union of India v. Sameer Dnyandev Wankhede, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2770341
