JUDGMENT Mr. Attar Singh, Honble Vice Chairman (Oral) 1. This application has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the impugned order dated April 17, 1998 issued by respondent No.2, whereby the name of the applicant has been kept under sealed cover and has not been promoted as Deputy Ranger on the ground that the departmental case is pending against him. 2. Briefly, the case of the petitioner is that he joined as a Forest Guard in the year 1967. In 1982, applicant was posted in Jawalanu Beat in Daiya Range in Chopal. A First Information Report was registered bearing No.47 of 1984 in which the applicant was also made as one of the accused. The FIR pertains to the period 1970 to 1978, when the applicant was posted in Bhalu Beat in Kanda Range. 3. The applicant received summons from Special Judge, Forest, Shimla and he was required to appear on March 29, 1995. On that date he was served with challan. There are 6/7 accused in that case. When this application was filed in October, 1998, the charges had not been framed by the learned Special Judge against the applicant and other accused. 4. Vide order dated April 17, 1998, Annexure-A issued by the respondent No.2, on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee, promotions Forest Guards were made to the post of Deputy Ranger. However, quo the applicant whose name figures at Sr.No.36 of the persons, whose cases have been kept under sealed cover, it has been mentioned against the name that a department case is pending against him. The applicant made representation dated May 12, 1998 (Annexure-A/ 2) to the Conservator of Forests, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla Circle, pointing out that no departmental case is pending against him and that a case is pending before the Court of Special Judge at Shimla against him. Vide office memorandum dated June 15, 1998 (Annexure-A/3) the Divisional Forest Officer, Chopal wrote to Conservator of Forests, Shimla that there are no departmental proceedings pending against the applicant and that Police Enforcement case is still pending before the Court and that such Police Enforcement cases have not been taken into consideration in many cases of promotion of Forest Guards and Deputy Rangers. He made many representation/reminders but he has not received any response from the respondent. 5. He made many representation/reminders but he has not received any response from the respondent. 5. The case of the petitioner is that when no departmental proceedings were pending against him and no charge had been framed when the Departmental Promotion Committee met, its recommendations should not have been kept in the sealed cover. In this regard he has referred 1991 (4) SCC-109 Union of India versus K.V.Janki Raman case wherein it has been held that it is only when a charge memo in a disciplinary proceedings or charge sheet 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. It has also been stated that the sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only if the charge-memo/charge-sheet is issued. In the present case, though the challan was presented in the criminal court in 1995, still charges have not been framed against the applicant as also against other accused persons. Therefore, it cannot be said in the present case that chargesheet has been issued to the applicant. It is further stated that the impugned action whereby the recommendations of the DPC have been kept under sealed cover is illegal because there is no chargesheet issued to the applicant till date in a criminal case, nor he is facing any disciplinary proceedings when the Original Application was filed. He also states that the respondents should immediately open the recommendations of the DPC kept in sealed cover and grant consequential benefits to the applicant from the due date with all consequential benefits. 6. The reply has also been filed by the respondents wherein it is stated that the Departmental Promotion Committee was held in December, 1997 for promotion of Forest Guards to the rank of Deputy Rangers. The result of the applicant was kept in sealed cover because the applicant was involved in illicit felling and export of trees from Government land and FIR No.47/84 was registered against him and others for offences u/s 379/420, 120 B, 467, 468 IPC, 41/42 of Indian Forest Act and section 18/20 of H.P. Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1978 and 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The Divisional Forest Officer, Chopal had accorded prosecution sanction for the prosecution of the applicant and two other Forest Guards vide office order No.20/94-95 dated 24.05.1994. The Divisional Forest Officer, Chopal had accorded prosecution sanction for the prosecution of the applicant and two other Forest Guards vide office order No.20/94-95 dated 24.05.1994. It is also stated that the case is under trial in the Court of Special Judge (Forest), Shimla who has framed the charges against the applicant and others accused in this case on .05.12.199.8. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Additional Advocate General and have gone through the record carefully. 8. From the perusal of the record it is clear that the Departmental Committee meeting was held in December, 1997 while the charges against the applicant were framed on 05.12.1998, that means when the Departmental Promotion Committee was held in December, 1997 for Promotion of Forest Guards to the rank of Deputy Rangers, charge sheet had not been framed against the petitioner, and we also find that no departmental proceedings were pending against the petitioner at that time. The learned counsel has referred para-16 of the 1991(4) SCC-109 Union of India versus K.V.Janki Raman which is reproduced as follows: "...The sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after the H Charge-memo/Charge-sheet is issued." The learned-counsel has also referred to 1998(2) SLJ SC-265 and this judgment is based on the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the above referred case. In view of above, we allow the petition and direct the respondents to open the sealed cover and grant the petitioner the consequential benefits from the due date within one month from the date of this order. With these directions the case is finally disposed of accordingly.