Synopsis

The petitioner, an employee of the Greater NOIDA Industrial Development Authority, was considered for promotion to the post of Senior Manager (Civil) by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) convened on 24th December 2020. The DPC adopted the sealed cover procedure on the ground that a disciplinary proceeding was pending against him (though the inquiry officer had exonerated him) and that a criminal prosecution was likely to be initiated. The petitioner’s junior was promoted. After the disciplinary proceeding concluded with a censure penalty (later cancelled) and criminal charges were finally filed in 2023, the petitioner’s representation for promotion was rejected on 12th June 2025.

The High Court allowed the writ petition, holding that: (i) on the date of the DPC (24.12.2020), no charge‑sheet had been issued in the disciplinary proceeding (the inquiry report had exonerated the petitioner, but the court held that disciplinary proceedings were nonetheless pending – this point was decided against the petitioner); (ii) more importantly, no criminal charge‑sheet had been filed in court by that date – the sanction for prosecution was granted only on 18.11.2022, and the charge‑sheet was filed on 10.10.2023, both after the DPC; (iii) under the Government Order dated 28.5.1997 and the settled law in K.V. Jankiraman and Doly Loyi, the sealed cover procedure can be resorted to only after a charge‑memo is issued in a disciplinary proceeding or a charge‑sheet is filed in a criminal court; (iv) the pendency of a sanction for prosecution or investigation is not sufficient. The impugned order rejecting the representation was quashed, and the competent authority was directed to take a fresh decision within eight weeks.

Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Coram: Honourable Shree Prakash Singh, J.

Date of Judgment: 20th April 2026

Citation: Writ - A No. 7257 of 2025 (2026:AHC-LKO:26960)

Core Law: Service law – promotion, sealed cover procedure, disciplinary proceedings, criminal prosecution; Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 (writ jurisdiction); U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956; U.P. Industrial Development Authorities Centralized Services Rules, 2018

2. Legal Framework

Major laws and provisions involved

• Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 (writ jurisdiction)

• U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956 – Rules 24(1) and (2) (obligation to disclose movable/immovable property)

• U.P. Industrial Development Authorities Centralized Services Rules, 2018 – made the State Government the appointing authority

• Government Order dated 28.5.1997 (U.P.) – Clauses 2, 3 and 4 – grounds for adopting sealed cover procedure: (a) employee under suspension; (b) disciplinary proceeding pending with charge‑memo issued; (c) criminal prosecution pending with charge‑sheet filed in court.

Key legal principles applied

Sealed cover procedure – when applicable: The DPC may keep the recommendation regarding an employee in a sealed cover only if, on the date of the DPC, one of the following conditions exists: (i) the employee is under suspension; (ii) a disciplinary proceeding is pending against the employee and a charge‑memo has been issued; (iii) a criminal prosecution is pending against the employee and a charge‑sheet has been filed in the competent court. The mere pendency of a preliminary inquiry, investigation, or sanction for prosecution is not sufficient.

Pendency of disciplinary proceeding even after inquiry report exonerating the employee: If the disc

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.