Judgment :- Ajit J Gunjal, J. The petitioner is presently working as a District Manager in the first respondent Corporation. He would submit that since his appointment to the corporation, he has been serving honestly and with all devotion to his duty. He has no adverse remarks. The Corporation has its own Cadre and Recruitment Rules for the service conditions of its employees which is called Cadre and Recruitment Rules of 1992. The post of Deputy General Manager is to be filled up by promotion from the cadre of District Manager on the basis of meritcum-seniority. It is the case of the petitioner that the Departmental Promotion Committee has met to consider the promotion of District Managers to the cadre of Deputy General Manager. The case of the petitioner for promotion was kept in a sealed cover on the presumption that enquiry is pending against him. The petitioner further submits that undoubtedly a COD investigation is pending against him but however, investigation is not complete and the charge-sheet has not been filed. It is still at the stage of investigation. The first respondent has published a provisional seniority list of the cadre of District Managers on 1-1-2006 wherein the petitioner is placed at Sl.No. 8. The second respondent who is junior to him is at Sl.No. 12. Since no disciplinary proceedings are pending or initiated against the petitioner, or a charge sheet having been filed on the conclusion of the COD investigation, a representation is given by the petitioner to consider his case for promotion. The grievance of the petitioner is that during this interregnum, the second respondent has been considered for promotion along with some others and has been promoted as Deputy General Manager ignoring his claim and request for consideration of his case for promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager. It appears, the petitioner has given another representation on 5-6-2006. However, no action is taken on the said representation. Hence this petition. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in the absence of any departmental enquiry or a charge sheet being issued by the Criminal Court, the respondents could not have adopted the procedure of sealed cover. He further submits that when there are no Departmental Enquiry or Criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner, the claim of the petitioner ought to have been considered for promotion pursuant to the representation given by him. 3. He further submits that when there are no Departmental Enquiry or Criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner, the claim of the petitioner ought to have been considered for promotion pursuant to the representation given by him. 3. Mr. V.Y. Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent Corporation submits that the investigation was entrusted to the COD in the year 2005 and the investigation is still not over. Hence he submits that the very reference to the COD itself is a prima facie case for withholding the promotion of the petitioner and placing the recommendations in the sealed covers. 4. The concept of sealed cover is now a well established procedure in service jurisprudence. This procedure is to be adopted when an employee is due for a promotion, increment etc., if the disciplinary criminal proceedings are pending against him, and the finding as regarding the employees service benefit, promotion and increment are kept in sealed cover which is to be opened if the proceedings in question are over. But however, the most question is what is the stage when the sealed cover concept is resorted to. Indeed, the said concept is required to be resorted only when a departmental enquiry is initiated or criminal proceedings are initiated against an employee. The initiation of departmental enquiry or criminal proceedings would partake the character of an issuance of a show cause notice in a departmental enquiry or issuance of a charge-sheet in a criminal proceedings. Until that is done, the question of keeping the recommendations of the committee in a sealed cover would not arise. It is also to be noticed that only when a charge memo in a disciplinary proceeding or charge sheet in criminal proceedings is issued to an employee, it can be said that the departmental enquiry/criminal proceedings is initiated against an employee. The pendency of a preliminary investigation or prior to that stage will not be sufficient to enable the authority to adopt the sealed cover procedure. Indeed, it is also to be noticed that the Government has issued a circular, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-C indicating that if any disciplinary or criminal proceedings are pending, the Departmental Promotion Committee shall consider the employees case and record its finding which will again be kept in a sealed cover in the manner mentioned therein. 5. Indeed, it is also to be noticed that the Government has issued a circular, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-C indicating that if any disciplinary or criminal proceedings are pending, the Departmental Promotion Committee shall consider the employees case and record its finding which will again be kept in a sealed cover in the manner mentioned therein. 5. What is significant is the said sealed cover procedure contemplates that it shall be adopted only after the date of issuance of a charge memo or charge sheet. That being the date from which the disciplinary proceedings are deemed to have been initiated. In the case on hand, it is to be noticed that no such departmental enquiry or criminal proceedings are pending against the petitioner. The promotion of the petitioner certainly cannot be withheld merely because some investigation is pending since 2005 as against the petitioner and some others. It is almost more than three years that the investigation is not over and no prima facie case has been found even as on today. Indeed, it is to be noticed that the petitioner has given a representation that his claim may be considered for promotion, having regard to the facts stated above. Indeed, the first respondent was required to consider the said representation. 6. Consequently, the following order is passed: The petitioner is allowed. Annexure-F insofar as the petitioner is concerned stands quashed. Consequently, the Departmental Promotion Committee/first respondent is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion without resorting to sealed cover procedure within an outer limit of 10 weeks from the date of this order. Rule is issued and made absolute.