( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court dated 29-7-1997. ( 2 ) BY the impugned judgment the High Court has directed the employer to open the sealed cover and implement the decision in relation to the respondent, an employee of the Corporation in the matter of his promotion to the post of Joint Manager from the post of Deputy Manager. The respondent joined Food Corporation of India on 9-9-1981 and was continuing as Deputy manager on substantive basis until he was promoted on ad hoc basis as Joint manager on 24-7-1996. ( 3 ) ON 23-5-1997, on the basis of certain allegations received against him, the Managing Director of the Corporation, directed initiation of a disciplinary proceeding and also placed the respondent under suspension under regulation 66 of the FCI Staff Regulations. On the very day, the departmental Promotion Committee which had met to consider the promotion from the post of Deputy Manager to Joint Manager adopted the sealed cover procedure in relation to the respondent in view of the order of suspension that had been passed against the respondent by the Managing director. The respondent then filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High court and obtained an order of stay of suspension on 4-6-1997. Subsequently, he filed another writ petition which was registered as WP No. 532 of 1997. In the said writ petition he prayed for the relief that the employer should be directed to open the sealed cover and implement the decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee notwithstanding the decision of the employer to initiate a disciplinary proceeding. By the impugned judgment the High Court having granted the relief sought for, FCI is in appeal. ( 4 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the office memorandum dated 14-9-1992 clearly provides for the procedure to be adopted by the Departmental Promotion Committee in case where the servant is under suspension or the servant in respect of whom a charge-sheet has been issued and the disciplinary proceedings are pending and the servant against whom prosecution is there or a criminal charge is pending. This being the position on 23-5-1997, the appropriate authorities having placed the respondent employee under suspension, there was no infirmity with the sealed cover procedure adopted by the Departmental Promotion Committee and the High Court, therefore, was fully in error in directing the employer to open the sealed cover and implement the decision taken by the Departmental promotion Committee. ( 5 ) ACCORDING to the learned counsel, the procedure adopted by the departmental Promotion Committee in the present case by putting the decision in a sealed cover is quite in consonance with the principles enunciated by this Court in Union of India v. K. V. Jankiraman and the High court was in error in issuing the impugned direction. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Kewal Kumar. ( 7 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having examined the materials on record, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the High Court was totally in error in issuing the impugned direction requiring the employer to open the sealed cover and to implement the decision taken in the sealed cover. Be it stated that in the meantime, the disciplinary proceeding has culminated in finding the guilt of the respondent and inflicting certain punishments therefor. ( 8 ) THOUGH the respondent has entered appearance through counsel, but the learned counsel was absent even when the case was taken up on the earlier occasion and also today there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent. ( 9 ) IN the aforesaid premises, we set aside the impugned order/judgment of the High Court and allow this appeal.