Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 408 (ORI)

Saroja Kumar Mishra v. Coal India Limited

2006-05-18

N.PRUSTY, P.K.MOHANTY

body2006
JUDGMENT N. PRUSTY, J. : The petitioner, who is working as Senior Accounts Officer on his promotion to E/3 Grade in Mahanadi Coal Fields Limited, Talcher, has filed this writ petition for a direction to opposite party No.1 to consider his case for promo¬tion to E/4 Grade retrospectively with effect from 3.8.1999, i.e., the date on which his immediate junior Sri P. K. Prasad/O.P. No.4 was promoted to the post of Deputy Finance Manager in E/4 Grade, which was notionally to be effective from 31.3.1999, with all service/financial benefits as has been given in favour of opposite party No.4. 2. The case of the petitioner, in short, is that he was initially appointed as Accountant on 10.3.1986. Thereafter he was promoted to E/1 Grade on 15.7.1987. After passing I.C.W.A. Final Examination in June, 1988, he was promoted to E/2 Grade on 24.10.1988 and thereafter promoted to E/3 Grade on 31.3.1993. While working in E/3 Grade as Senior Accounts Officer, he re¬ceived the letters of appreciation from the higher authorities from time to time. He got promotion from one executive grade to another on the basis of recommendation made by the duly consti¬tuted Departmental Promotion Committee. Promotion from E/3 to E/4 Grade is to be made having three years experience in the next below grade with the minimum qualification of ACA/AICWA/MBA as well as specialization in Finance CAS Accounts. Since the peti¬tioner passed ICWA Final Examination and was promoted to E/3 Grade as on 31.3.1993 he was eligible for consideration for promotion to the next higher grade in E/4 on 31.3.1996. The criteria for promotion up to E/3 Grade are seniority-cum-merit and beyond E/3 grade is merit-cum-seniority. As per subsequent amended guidelines/executive instructions dated 29.3.1993 the Management introduced cluster concept wherein it has been provided that consideration of promotion from E/2 Grade to E/3 grade and from E/4 grade to E/5 grade shall be based on seniority-cum-merit and promotion from E/5 to E/9 grade shall be based on merit with emphasis on managerial competence. In view of the above, the promotion from E/3 to E/4 grade shall have to be based on seniority-cum-merit. As per the seniority fixed on 1.3.1999 with regard to finance and accounts discipline of E/3 grade, the name of the petitioner found place above to opposite party No.4 and as such, the petitioner was admittedly senior to opposite party No.4. In view of the above, the promotion from E/3 to E/4 grade shall have to be based on seniority-cum-merit. As per the seniority fixed on 1.3.1999 with regard to finance and accounts discipline of E/3 grade, the name of the petitioner found place above to opposite party No.4 and as such, the petitioner was admittedly senior to opposite party No.4. But to the misfortune of the petitioner when opposite party No.4 got promotion to E/4 grade, i.e., post of Deputy Finance Manager, on 3.8.1999, name of the petitioner did not find place in the list. Immediately thereaf¬ter, the petitioner made representation to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, MCL, Burla/opposite party No.2 to consider his case for promotion, through proper channel. Since no communica¬tion was received in spite of reminders to different authorities of the Coal India Limited, the petitioner has approached this Court in this writ petition in April, 2000, for the relief as stated above. It has also been stated by the petitioner that all along in the gradation list he was senior to opposite party No.4 and during his service career he has never been communicated with any adverse remark, rather he has received letters of apprecia¬tion time and again from his higher authorities. Opposite party No.4, who is admittedly junior to the petitioner got promotion to E/4 grade in supersession of the claim of the petitioner. There¬fore, the petitioner is entitled for promotion to E/4 grade from 3.8.1999, i.e., the date of issuance of Annexure-6 and notionally from 31.03.1999. 3. Opposite parties 1 to 3 have filed their counter affi¬davit stating therein that as per Cadre Rules, the Executives in E/3 grade in Finance Discipline, who possess ICWA (Final) qualification, shall be eligible for promotion on completion of three years service in the grade subject to availability of vacancy in the higher grade and hence promotion from E/3 grade to E/4 grade is not automatic and irrespective of vacancy. Opposite party No.4, immediate junior to the petitioner, was promoted to E/4 grade by order-dated 3.8.1999 and the order of promotion of the petitioner could not be released owing to pendency of vigi¬lance case against him. As per the Rules of the Company, one cannot be promoted during the pendency of the vigilance case. Opposite party No.4, immediate junior to the petitioner, was promoted to E/4 grade by order-dated 3.8.1999 and the order of promotion of the petitioner could not be released owing to pendency of vigi¬lance case against him. As per the Rules of the Company, one cannot be promoted during the pendency of the vigilance case. Although the petitioner was eligible for promotion along with his batch mates (Juniors) with effect from 31.3.1999, he could not be promoted owing to pendency of the vigilance case against him, as mentioned above. The promotion from E/3 to E/4 grade is consid¬ered on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and on recommendation of the duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee. As such, following the Rules of the Department, the petitioner could not be promoted to E/4 grade due to the pendency of the vigilance case against him even if he is otherwise eligible to get promo¬tion. 4. The petitioner, in his rejoinder to the counter affida¬vit filed by the opposite parties, has highlighted his career, letters of appreciation and emphatically submitted that no ad¬verse remark has ever been communicated to him, rather his work has been commended upon. He has further submitted that till date no departmental enquiry has been made nor any vigilance case is pending against him. He has also never been issued with any charge memo by the Department with regard to initiation of disci¬plinary proceeding against him nor any charge sheet has ever been submitted against him in any Court of Law with regard to any vigilance enquiry. Thus, on the date, the Departmental Promotion Committee (D.P.C.) met, there was no vigilance case pending against him departmentally or before any Court of Law. As such, he is eligible to get promotion with effect from 31.3.1999, since till that date no charge sheet has been submitted by the Vigi¬lance authority nor any charge memo has been issued/served on him with regard to initiation of any disciplinary proceeding against him as stated above. It was open for the opposite parties to proceed against the petitioner departmentally or in the vigilance case, if they are having sufficient materials against him. Since nothing has been done against him till date there is no reason for the opposite parties to stop his promotion to E/4 grade basing upon his seniority-cum-merit coupled with commendations received by him from the higher authorities. Since nothing has been done against him till date there is no reason for the opposite parties to stop his promotion to E/4 grade basing upon his seniority-cum-merit coupled with commendations received by him from the higher authorities. Law is well settled that initiation of the Departmental Proceeding or Criminal Proceeding starts only after a charge memo is served on the employee or a charge sheet is filed against him in the appropriate Court. At stated above, since till date no charge memo had been served on the petitioner initiating a de¬partmental proceeding or chargesheet had been filed initiating a criminal proceeding against him, it can never be said that any proceeding is pending against him. The Departmental authorities have given promotion to one Ramesh Ch. Rath who was promoted on 1.3.1999 from E/4 to E/5 grade, against whom a criminal proceed¬ing was pending and charge sheet had already been submitted on the C.B.I. Court, Bhubaneswar. Whereas even when no proceeding in either way was pending against the petitioner, he was being har¬assed by the department in not giving him promotion, in spite of consideration and recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee. 5. In his further affidavit, the petitioner has stated that the Coal India Ltd. issued fresh guidelines dated 14.5.2002 in supersession of the earlier guidelines dated 19/27.6.1979 and 8.1.1981 wherein it was provided that when an officer in respect of whom charge sheet has been issued and disciplinary proceedings are pending, his case shall be kept in sealed cover/withheld only on the ground mentioned in the letter itself. Subsequently, the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Deputy Finance manag¬er in E/4 grade on 17.5.2002 until further orders with the condi¬tion that the promotion has been made purely on ad hoc basis and the ad hoc promotion will not confer any right for regular promo¬tion and the Company reserves the right to cancel the ad hoc promotion and may revert the petitioner at any time to the post of Senior Accounts Officer. He has again made a representation to the Deputy Chief Personnel Manager to consider his case for promotion and restore his seniority to E/4 grade with effect from 31.3.1999, i.e., the date on which his immediately junior got the promotion. He has again made a representation to the Deputy Chief Personnel Manager to consider his case for promotion and restore his seniority to E/4 grade with effect from 31.3.1999, i.e., the date on which his immediately junior got the promotion. Since no charge sheet till then has been either issued in the Disciplinary proceeding or filed in the Criminal Proceed¬ing against the petitioner, he should have been considered for promotion retrospectively with effect from 31.3.1999 in conformi¬ty with the circular issued on 14.5.2002. It is further submitted by the petitioner that a charge sheet has been issued on him only on 13.6.2002 and the petitioner received the same on 21.6.2002. As such, there was no proceeding pending against him till 13.6.2002/21.6.2002. 6. Opposite parties 1 to 3 have filed their additional counter affidavit, inter alia, stating therein that the promotion is not a matter of right. Seniority is not the sole criteria for promoting. For promotion to next higher grade one should have acquired Executive Evaluation Report Rating and Clearance from Vigilance and the Department. General Manager (Vigilance), M.C.L. vide his letter dated 17.7.1999 had intimated that a vigilance case is pending against the petitioner. Again on 8.11.1999 the General Manger (Vigilance) intimated that on scrutiny of records main¬tained in the Vigilance Department, MCL, it reveals that the petitioner’s name is figuring in the vigilance case No. VC/02/98 pertaining to IWSS Phase-II of Talcher. After perusal of the report, the Chairman, Coal India desired that action against all the officials below board level may be taken by the C.M.D., M.C.L., the file has since been received. However, in view of the guidelines of CVC, if any officer, two levels below board level is involved in any case, the entire matter is required to be referred to CVC for first stage advice as the case becomes a consolidated one. Since other officials involved in the matter were of M-2 rank and above, the case of the petitioner needs to be referred to CVC for first stage advice. The petitioner was issued with a memorandum for major penalty on 13.6.2002 by the CMD, MCL. Enquiry into the said memorandum has been completed and the petitioner has been imposed with a penalty of reduction of pay by one stage for a period of one year without cumulative effect vide order dated 19.7.2003. The petitioner was issued with a memorandum for major penalty on 13.6.2002 by the CMD, MCL. Enquiry into the said memorandum has been completed and the petitioner has been imposed with a penalty of reduction of pay by one stage for a period of one year without cumulative effect vide order dated 19.7.2003. In the meeting of the Depart¬mental Promotion Committee, no clearance was obtained from the Vigilance Department in respect of the petitioner. The petitioner was promoted to E/4 grade by order dated 17.5.2002 as per Rules, because the vigilance case pending against him could not reach its finality within two years from the date of his batch mates and juniors were promoted to the next higher grade. Presently, the vigilance case/enquiry proceeding having been completed and the penalty having been imposed on the petitioner, necessary action in respect of the petitioner is being taken by the author¬ity. 7. Opposite party No.4 has filed a separate counter affidavit highlighting all his grievances and as to how he got promotion to E/4 grade much after he became eligible for the same. The petitioner has also filed a reply to the said counter affidavit, but in this case since the petitioner has only claimed his promotion with retrospective effect from the date opposite party No.4 got his promotion and not otherwise challenged the eligibility of opposite party No.4 for promotion to E/4 grade, no useful purpose will be served in discussing the stand taken by opposite party No.4 in this case. 8. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the pleadings of the respective parties, the only issue to be decided in this case is as to whether the sealed cover procedure can be resorted to in the case of the petitioner after the meeting and recommendation of the Departmental Promo¬tion Committee, on the ground of pendency of a vigilance case against him even though in reality no charge memo initiating a disciplinary proceeding was served on him nor a charge sheet was filed in an appropriate Court of law initiating a criminal prose¬cution against the petitioner and when the Vigilance wing of the employer or the Department in which the petitioner is working, were enquiring into some matter only relating to involvement of the petitioner can it be said that a vigilance case is pending against the petitioner and on that basis, the sealed cover proce¬dure can be resorted to. 9. Admittedly, the petitioner was promoted to E/3 grade on 31.3.1993. Promotion from E/3 grade to E/4 grade shall be made with three years experience in the next below grade, i.e. E/3 grade with minimum qualification of ACA/AICWA/MBA with speciali¬zation in Finance CAS Accounts. Since the petitioner was promoted to E/3 grade with effect from 31.3.1993 and having the requisite qualification and experience, he was eligible for consideration for promotion to the next higher grade i.e. E/4 grade on 31.3.1996 on the basis of his seniority-cum-merit and also fur¬ther entitled for promotion up to E/5 grade on such basis, i.e., seniority-cum-merit. As per the seniority fixed on 1.3.1999 with regard to the finance and accounts discipline of E/3 grade, name of the petitioner was above Shri P.K. Prasad (opposite party No.4). Opposite party No.4 was promoted to E/4 grade on 3.8.1999 with retrospective effect from 31.3.1999. No adverse remark has ever been communicated to the petitioner by that time. Rather he had got letters of appreciation for his commendable work from the higher authorities at different points of time. On 3.8.1999 and/or 31.3.1999 opposite party No.4 was admittedly junior to the petitioner. Only on 8.11.1999, the General Manager (Vigilance) intimated that the name of the petitioner is figuring in a vigi¬lance case, but by then no charge sheet initiating any criminal proceeding was submitted against him before any criminal Court nor any memorandum of charges initiating a departmental proceed¬ing was served on the petitioner. Only on 8.11.1999, the General Manager (Vigilance) intimated that the name of the petitioner is figuring in a vigi¬lance case, but by then no charge sheet initiating any criminal proceeding was submitted against him before any criminal Court nor any memorandum of charges initiating a departmental proceed¬ing was served on the petitioner. The petitioner was promoted to E/4 grade on ad hoc basis on 17.5.2002. On 14.5.2002, the Depart¬ment issued a circular in which the earlier circulars dated 27.6.1979 and 8.1.1981 of the Coal India Ltd. were modified as per the guidelines fixed by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India etc. etc. v. K.V. Jankiraman etc. etc. reported in AIR 1991 S.C. 2010 . Till 14.5.2002, no memorandum of charges initiat¬ing a Departmental proceeding or a charge sheet initiating a criminal case were pending against the petitioner. The petitioner also made a number of representations to the General Manager, MCL, to give him promotion with effect from 31.3.1999. On 5.6.2002, the Chief General Manager (personnel) issued a letter to review all the cases where the executives concerned have not been considered for promotion due to pending investigation/con¬templation of any vigilance case but no charge sheet was issued against such executives till that date. The petitioner was issued with a memorandum of charges by letter dated 13.6.2002 and he received the same on 21.6.2002. This departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on the basis of preliminary enquiry by the Vigilance Department of the Coal India Limited. On 23.9.2002, opposite party No.4 was again promoted to E/5 grade. The petitioner had never been suspended during the period of so-called preliminary inquiry nor during the period of departmental inquiry. On 19.7.2003, the petitioner has been imposed with an order of punishment, i.e., reduction of pay for a period of one year without cumulative effect by one stage and he preferred an appeal before the Chairman, Coal India Limited against the order of punishment on 29.7.2003, which is still pending. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India etc. etc. v. K.V. Jankiraman etc. etc. (Supra) which was also subse¬quently followed by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others vs. Dr. (Smt.) Sudha Salhan reported in AIR 1998 Supreme Court 1094. 10. etc. v. K.V. Jankiraman etc. etc. (Supra) which was also subse¬quently followed by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others vs. Dr. (Smt.) Sudha Salhan reported in AIR 1998 Supreme Court 1094. 10. The opposite parties all along have only stated that the order of promotion of the petitioner could not be given owing to pendency of the vigilance case against him. As per the Rules of the Company, one cannot be promoted during pendency of a vigi¬lance case. Although the petitioner was eligible for promotion along with his batch mates/juniors with effect from 31.3.1999, he was not promoted due to pendency of the vigilance case and the reason for not giving promotion to the petitioner to E/4 grade is as per the prescribed Rules of the Company in this regard. Since for promotion to next higher grade one must have required execu¬tive evaluation report, rating and clearance from the Vigilance Department and the Vigilance Department intimated by their letter dated 17.7.1999 that a vigilance case was pending against the petitioner and the same thing was also again reiterated in the letter dated 8.11.1999 of the General Manager, Vigilance, the entire matter was required to be referred to the C.V.C. for first stage advice. On the date of meeting of the Departmental Promo¬tion Committee no clearance was obtained from the Vigilance De¬partment in respect of the petitioner. Because of pendency of the vigilance case against the petitioner and as the case did not reach its finality within two years from the date on which his batch mates/juniors were promoted, the petitioner was promoted to E/4 grade as per the Rules. 11. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India etc. etc. vs. K.V. Jankiraman etc. etc. reported in AIR 1991 Supreme Court 2010 (supra) in clear and categorical terms has observed/held as follows : “It is only when a charge-memo in a disciplinary proceedings or a charge-sheet in a criminal prosecution is issued to the employee it can be said that the departmental proceedings/crimi¬nal prosecution is initiated against the employee. The sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after the charge-memo/charge sheet is issued. The pendency of preliminary investi¬gation prior to that stage will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure. The sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after the charge-memo/charge sheet is issued. The pendency of preliminary investi¬gation prior to that stage will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure. The plea that when there are serious allegations and it takes time to collect necessary evidence to prepare and issue charge-memo/charge-sheet, it would not be in the interest of the purity of administration to reward the employee with a promotion, increment etc., would not be tenable. The preliminary investigations take an inordi¬nately long time and particularly when they are initiated at the instance of the interested persons, they are kept pending delib¬erately. Many times they never result in the issue of any charge-memo/charge sheet.If the allegations are serious and the authori¬ties are keen investigating them, ordinarily it should not take much time to collect the relevant evidence and finalise the charges. What is further, if the charges are that serious, the authorities have the power to suspend the employee under the relevant rules, and the suspension by itself permits to resort to the sealed cover procedure. The authorities thus are not without a remedy.” “The promotion etc. cannot be withheld merely because some disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending against the employ¬ee. To deny the said benefit, they must be at the relevant time pending at the stage when charge-memo/charge-sheet has already been issued to the employee.” 12. Following the ratio decided in the case of K.V. Janaki¬raman again in 1998, the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others vs. Dr. (Smt.) Sudha Salhan reported in AIR 1998 Supreme Court, 1094 also took the same view and observed as follows : “We are also of the opinion that if on the date which the name of a person is considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion to the higher post, such person is nei¬ther under suspension nor has any departmental proceedings been initiated against him, his name, if he is found meritorious and suitable, has to be brought on the select list and the “sealed cover” procedure cannot be adopted. The recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee can be placed in a “sealed cover” only if on the date of consideration of the name for promotion, the departmental proceedings had been initiated or were pending or on its conclusion, final orders had not been passed by the appropriate authority. It is obvious that if the officer, against whom the departmental proceedings were initiat¬ed, is ultimately exonerated, the sealed cover containing the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee would be opened, and the recommendation would be given effect to.” 13. Keeping in view the ratio decided in the cases of Union of India etc. etc. vs. K. V. Janakiraman etc. etc. (Supra) and Union of India vs. Dr. (Smt.) Sudha Salhan (Supra), a Departmental proceeding or a criminal prosecution can be said to have been initiated against an employee only when a charge memo in a disciplinary proceeding or a charge sheet in a criminal prosecution is issued to the employee and only in such case sealed cover procedure can be resorted to, i.e., after the charge memo/charge sheet is issued. Pendency of preliminary investiga¬tion by the Vigilance cell of the concerned organization or by the Department prior to issuance of the charge memo or charge sheet will not be sufficient to enable the concerned authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure. Pendency of investigation by the Vigilance Cell/concerned Department of the organization for a indefinite period, which might have been initiated at the in¬stance of any interested person or by the Department itself, can not be taken as a ground for keeping the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee in a sealed cover. As such, promotion of an employee cannot be withheld merely because pend¬ency of an investigation for initiation of any disciplinary pro¬ceeding or criminal prosecution. unless a charge memo is served on an employee or a charge sheet is submitted against him in any criminal Court, recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion cannot be withheld only on the basis of an unfounded allegation, i.e., on the plea that an investigation relating to conduct of an employee is going on. unless a charge memo is served on an employee or a charge sheet is submitted against him in any criminal Court, recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion cannot be withheld only on the basis of an unfounded allegation, i.e., on the plea that an investigation relating to conduct of an employee is going on. As such, recom¬mendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee can be kept in a sealed cover only if on the date of consideration of the case of an employee for promotion to the next higher grade, a Depart¬mental proceeding has already been initiated and pending for its finality before the appropriate authority. 14. It may not be out of place to mention here that the office memorandum dated 14.5.2002 was issued by the Coal India Ltd. in modification of the earlier office memorandums dated 19/27.6.1979 and 8.1.1981. The petitioner was entitled for promo¬tion to E/4 grade retrospectively with effect from 31.3.1999 when his immediate junior got the promotion. The memorandum of charges dated 13.6.2002 was served on the petitioner on 21.6.2000, i.e. much after his immediate junior got the promotion. The petitioner by the date of his eligibility for promotion was not kept under suspension pending any inquiry proceeding against him. Rather he was given conditional ad hoc promotion to E/4 grade on 17.5.2002. The petitioner had made a number of representations to his higher authorities in this regard prior to and after filing of this writ petition in 2000 and in spite of repeated representations high¬lighting his grievances in this regard, the same has not been considered by the concerned authorities. 15. Taking into consideration of the entire factual matrix of the case and keeping in view the ratio decided by the Apex Court in different cases, so far as the present petitioner is concerned, the ratio decided in the case of Union of India-vrs-K.V. Jankiraman and Union of India -vrs- Dr. (Smt.) Sudha Salhan has to be followed and since the concerned employees in the cases of Delhi Development Authority -vs- H.C. Khurana (A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 1488), Union of India -vs- Kewal Kumar (A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 1585) and Union of India -vs- R.S. Sharma (A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 2337) stand on a different footing than the present petitioner, the ratio decided in those cases cannot be followed in the case of the present petitioner. In the case of R.S. Sharma the order of the Tribunal directing to open the sealed cover and giving effect to the recommendation made by the D.P.C. on the ground of non-service of charge memo, was set aside keeping in view the Rules/Circulars/O.M. in force-more particularly clause-iv of the O.M. wherein it is provided that during the pendency or “investi¬gation on serious allegation of corruption, bribery or similar grave misconduct is in progress either by the C.B.I. or any agency, departmental or otherwise”, sealed cover procedure can be resorted to till the proceeding is over in all respect. But in the instant case on the basis of O.M./Circular/Rules followed by the MCL/Coal India, the sealed cover was opened and the petition¬er was given promotion to next higher grade (Grade-4) since the so called investigation was not completed within two years from the date the immediate junior to the petitioner was promoted. This particular office memorandum has been issued may be with the intention to check prolonged enquiry covering a period of more than two years in respect of certain allegations against an employee, so that the concerned employee shall not be harassed or debared from getting benefit on the recommendation of D.P.C. for an indefinite/prolonged period on the ground of pendency of such enquiry, without initiation of a departmental proceeding after service of charge memo. However once the sealed cover is opened and the petitioner is allowed the benefit of the recommen¬dation of D.P.C. by giving him promotion to the next higher grade, he shall be entitled for all consequential benefits from the date his immediate junior got the same. In this case the petitioner had never been suspended during the period of the so-called preliminary enquiry nor during the period of departmental enquiry. As such, he shall be entitled for promotion notionally with effect from the date his immediate junior got the same along with all service and financial benefit. 16. In view of the discussions made above, so far as settled law with regard to commencement of departmental proceeding and adoption of sealed cover procedure is concerned, after decision of the Apex Court in the cases of K.V. Jankiraman and Dr. (Smt.) Sudha Salhan, a good number of decisions have come as to when departmental proceeding can be said to have been ini¬tiated and sealed cover procedure can be adopted by the depart¬ment. (Smt.) Sudha Salhan, a good number of decisions have come as to when departmental proceeding can be said to have been ini¬tiated and sealed cover procedure can be adopted by the depart¬ment. But till date the ratio decided by the Apex Court in the cases of K.V. Jankiraman and Dr. (Smt.) Sudha Salhan has not yet been set aside and/or modified in this regard by any subsequent decisions and those two decisions still govern the filed/hold good. 17. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The opposite parties, particularly, opposite party No.1 is directed to give promotion to the petitioner to E/4 grade retrospectively with effect from 3.8.1999 and notionally with effect from 31.3.1999, i.e,. the date from which his immediate junior/opposite party No.4 was also given promotion to E/4 grade, along with all consequential service and other financial benefits. So far as the order of punishment in respect of the petitioner is concerned, that shall have only prospective effect. There shall be no order as to costs. P. K. MOHANTY, J. I agree. Petition allowed.