J. K. MEHRA ( 1 ) THE petitioner has come to this Court impugning non-grant of promotion on the basis of the allegation that even though no charge sheet had been served upon him. the DPC has followed sealed cover procedure. It is stated that only a fact finding inquiry was in progress. Mr. Sharma has relied upon the law laid down by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India etc. etc. Vs. K. V. Jankiraman etc. reported as AIR 91 SC 2010 wherein it has been laid down that where the initiation of disciplinary procecdings is only in contemplation and no charge sheet has been served. sealed cover procedure cannot be adopted and the petitioner should not be deprived of the promotion. ( 2 ) IN the present case. admittedly till date no charge sheet has been served and it was therefore not correct to adopt the sealed cover procedure. ( 3 ) MR. Shali has opposed the petition and has relied upon another decision of the Supreme Court Union of India and others Vs. K. Krishnan reported as 1992 Supp (3) S. C. C. 50 and states that according to the ratio of the said judgement if any promotion is allowed to the petitioner it would amount to placing premimum on the misconduct because the fact finding inquiry" did not absolve the petitioner and in fact the authorities concerned had even ordered recovery of certain amount from the petitioner. This case in our view cannot be of any help to the respondent. In this case. the disciplinary proceedings were already in progress and that is why the sealed cover procedure was adopted. In the present case. as already observed above, even the charge sheet has not so for been issued to the petitioner. ( 4 ) WE also do not find any merit in the further submission of Mr. Shali to the effect that internal instructions of the Department were amended to be brought m line with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in K. V. Jankiraman s case (supra) only in 1992 and that the law declared by the Supreme Court in 1991 could not have retrospective effect and would not relate back to any case prior in time. We find that in the said case, the Supreme Court had considered all the submissions and had upheld the decision of the full bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. which was rendered way hack in 1987. and which had been challenged by Union of India. In the circumstances, we hold that the adoption of sealed cover procedure in the case of the petitioner was bad and that the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of the recommendations of DPC with effect from the date recommended by the D. P. C. . if they have so recommended. ( 5 ) IN the result, petition succeeds. Rule is made absolute. This petition is disposed of in the above terms with no order as to court.