JUDGMENT T. Nandakumar Singh, J. 1. Heard Mr. M. Devananda, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as Mr. C. Kamal, learned Asstt. S.G, appearing for the Respondents. 2. As directed by this Court, Mr. C. Kamal, learned Asstt. S.G, produced the minutes of Departmental Promotion Committee convened on 18.04.2007 to consider the cases of the Commandants for promotion to the rank of Addl. DIGP in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) in sealed cover before this Court for perusal; and the sealed cover is opened in the open Court. 3. This Court also carefully perused the proceeding of the DPC convened on 18.04.2007 for consideration of the cases of the Commandants to draw panel for promotion to the rank of Addl. DIGP in the CRPF. The relevant portion of the minutes of the DPC is being quoted at the appropriate place of this judgment. 4. By this writ petition, the Petitioner is assailing the order dated 11.12.2007 for promoting the Petitioner's junior/Respondent No. 4 to the post of Addl. DIG and also by this writ petition, the Petitioner is seeking for a direction to the Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to promote the Petitioner to the post of Addl. DIGP, CRPF, w.e.f. the date of promotion of his junior to the post of Addl. DIGP, CRPF. 5. For deciding the present writ petition, a brief fact of the Petitioner's case is required to be noted. Admittedly the Petitioner joined service as Deputy Superintendent of Police, CRPF on 06.10.1984. After serving seven years as Deputy Commandant, CRPF the Petitioner was promoted to the post of Second in Command w.e.f. 17.01.1999 in the CRPF. Later on after considering his satisfactory service as Second in Command in CRPF he was again promoted to the post of Commandant, CRPF on 27.05.2002. It is also stated that the Director General of Police, CRPF had written letters for his excellent performance in the service of CRPF. 6. The Directorate General, CRPF, CGO Complex (Ministry of Home Affairs) issued a circular dated 05.02.2003 prescribing conditions for promotion to different posts in the CRPF. For promotion to the post of Addl. DIGP, essential requirements to be fulfilled by the Commandant under the said circular are: Commandant to Addl. DIG (i) Commandant with 18 years Group 'A' service of which two year service should be in the rank of Commandant. For promotion to the post of Addl. DIGP, essential requirements to be fulfilled by the Commandant under the said circular are: Commandant to Addl. DIG (i) Commandant with 18 years Group 'A' service of which two year service should be in the rank of Commandant. (ii) Two years Command as Commandant in duty Bn. (iii) Should have undergone Senior Commandant Management Course of 2 weeks duration. (iv) Medical category SHAPE-1. 7. It is admitted case of the parties that the Petitioner had fulfilled the essential requirements for promotion to the post of Addl. DIG quoted above as early as 2004. 8. From the pleadings of the writ Petitioner in the writ petition and the additional affidavits and also from the pleadings of the Respondents in their counter affidavit and the additional affidavit, it is clear that a DPC for consideration of the cases of Commandants for promotion to the post of Addl. DIGP in CRPF was held on 18.04.2007. As stated above the learned Asstt. S.G makes the proceedings of the said DPC held on 18.04.2007 available before this Court. For easy reference para Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the proceedings of the DPC held on 18.04.2007 are quoted hereunder: 8. All the officers in the zone of consideration for promotion as Addl. DIGP are free from vigilance angle and their integrity has been certified except Shri D.C. Moses against whom DE/Criminal Case is pending and Shri Satinder Singh against whom a proposal for initiation of major penalty proceedings has been sent to CVC through MHA. 9. The cases of all the eligible officers were considered and they are graded as under: S. No. IRLA Name Assessment Medical Category Remarks 1. 1277 Sikandar UNFIT SHAPE-1 23.10.2006 2. 1272 Sam Anuj UNFIT SHAPE-1 23.09.2006 3. 2200 Surender Malik FIT SHAPE-1 19.10.2006 4. 2239 Kuldeep Dhar FIT SHAPE-1 14.12.2006 5. 2298 Deepak Moses Sealed Cover SHAPE-1 14.09.2006 6. 2233 Bhupati Chauhan FIT SHAPE-1 03.10.2006 7. 2222 Sanjay Kaushik FIT SHAPE-1 14.11.2006 8. 2227 Pramod Pandey FIT SHAPE-1 22.11.2006 9. 2306 K.Vijay Kumar FIT SHAPE-1 22.08.2006 10. 2234 Sunil Singh FIT SHAPE-1 23.11.2006 11. 2252 N.B. Bhosle FIT SHAPE-1 17.11.2006 12. 2270 Satender Pal Singh FIT SHAPE-1 14.11.2006 13. 2600 S.P. Pokhriyal FIT SHAPE-1 27.11.2006 14. 2271 Satya Yadav FIT SHAPE-1 02.11.2006 15. 2232 Bhagwan Rathore FIT SHAPE-1 16.01.2007 16. 2224 Suraj Kajal FIT SHAPE-1 19.12.2006 17. 2306 K.Vijay Kumar FIT SHAPE-1 22.08.2006 10. 2234 Sunil Singh FIT SHAPE-1 23.11.2006 11. 2252 N.B. Bhosle FIT SHAPE-1 17.11.2006 12. 2270 Satender Pal Singh FIT SHAPE-1 14.11.2006 13. 2600 S.P. Pokhriyal FIT SHAPE-1 27.11.2006 14. 2271 Satya Yadav FIT SHAPE-1 02.11.2006 15. 2232 Bhagwan Rathore FIT SHAPE-1 16.01.2007 16. 2224 Suraj Kajal FIT SHAPE-1 19.12.2006 17. 2223 S.C. Parashar FIT SHAPE-1 09.10.2006 18. 2236 Prakash J. Mohane FIT SHAPE-1 11.12.2006 19. 2574 P.K. Sharma Not of vacancies SHAPE-1 28.10.2006 20. 2405 E Nirmalaraj -do- SHAPE-1 04.10.2006 21. 2434 Satinder Singh -do- SHAPE-1 28.02.2007 22. 2493 S.J. Speake -do- SHAPE-1 08.02.2007 23. 2551 Satpal Kapoor -do- Awaited 24. 2548 Satpal Kapoor -do- SHAPE-1 20.10.2006 10. The recommendation of the DPC in respect of Shri Deepak Sitther Moses (IRLA : 2298) has been kept in sealed cover as departmental proceedings are pending against him. 11. Keeping in view the bench mark grading, the DPC recommends that the following officers may be brought on panel for promotion to the rank of Addl. DIG for the vacancy year 2007-2008: S. No. IRLA Name Assessment Medical Category Remarks 1. 2200 Surender Kumar Malik FIT SHAPE-1 19.10.2006 2. 2239 Kuldeep Dhar FIT SHAPE-1 14.12.2006 3. 2233 Bhupat Singh Chauhan FIT SHAPE-1 03.10.2006 4. 2222 Sanjay Kaushik FIT SHAPE-1 14.11.2006 5. 2227 Pramod Kumar Pandey FIT SHAPE-1 22.12.2006 6. 2306 K. Vijay Kumar FIT SHAPE-1 22.08.2006 7. 2234 Sunil Singh FIT SHAPE-1 23.11.2006 8. 2252 N.B. Bhosle FIT SHAPE-1 17.11.2006 9. 2270 Satender Pal Singh FIT SHAPE-1 14.11.2006 10. 2600 S.P. Pokhriyal FIT SHAPE-1 27.11.2006 11. 2271 Satya Prakash Yadav FIT SHAPE-1 02.11.2006 Due for Super annuati On wef 31.5.07 12. 2332 Bhagwan Singh Rathore FIT SHAPE-1 16.01.2007 13. 2224 Suraj Bhan Kajal FIT SHAPE-1 19.12.2006 14. 2223 S.C. Parashar FIT SHAPE-1 09.10.2006 9. On bare perusal of para No. 8 of the said DPC proceedings which has been quoted above, it is crystal clear that the Petitioner was free from vigilance angle and his integrity had been certified; and also on perusal of para No. 9 of the said DPC proceedings it is clear that the Petitioner is medically fit for promotion to the post of Addl. DIGP inasmuch as SHAPE-1 was issued as early as 09.10.2006. Copy of the SHAPE-1 dated 09.10.2006 is also available at Annexure-X/1 to the Affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Petitioner to the Misc. DIGP inasmuch as SHAPE-1 was issued as early as 09.10.2006. Copy of the SHAPE-1 dated 09.10.2006 is also available at Annexure-X/1 to the Affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Petitioner to the Misc. Application No. 40 of 2008 filed by the present Respondents for vacating the interim order dated 21.01.2008 passed in the present writ petition. 10. The case of the Respondents in their Affidavit-in-opposition is that the promotion of the Petitioner is being withheld for want of the AME report in accordance with the Recruitment Rules and Vigilance clearance from his superior authority; and also that his promotion is not being released for want of AME report and Vigilance clearance. Unfortunately, the case of the Respondents in their Affidavit-in-opposition are belled by the proceedings of the DPC held on 18.04.2007 for considering the cases of the Commandants for promotion to the post of Addl. DIGP, CRPF inasmuch as in para Nos. 8 and 9 of the DPC proceedings quoted above, it is clearly mentioned that the Petitioner is free from Vigilance angle and his integrity had been certified and also that the Petitioner is medically fit viz. SHAPE-1 dated 19.10.2006. 11. The present writ petition for the relief sought for therein was filed as early as December 2007. Therefore, it is crystal clear that as on the date of filing the writ petition, the Petitioner was free from Vigilance angle, his integrity had been certified and he is also medically fit for promotion to the post of Addl. DIGP and also as on 18.04.2007 i.e. on the date of holding DPC for promotion to the post of Addl. DIGP, CRPF the Petitioner was free from Vigilance angle, his integrity had been certified and he is medically fit for promotion to the post of Addl. DIGP, CRPF. The Addl. DIGP (Pets.1) under his letter dated 26.05.2008 informed the Petitioner that his case has now been considered as if the recommendations had been placed in a sealed cover by the DPC as per the DPC guidelines. As stated above this fact is also not correct inasmuch as there was no finding in the proceedings of the said DPC held on 18.04.2007 that the case of the Petitioner shall be placed in a sealed cover. 12. Mr. Devananda, learned Counsel for the Petitioner by referring to the decisions of the Apex Court in Union of India and Ors. v. K.V. Jankiraman and Ors. 12. Mr. Devananda, learned Counsel for the Petitioner by referring to the decisions of the Apex Court in Union of India and Ors. v. K.V. Jankiraman and Ors. (1991) 4 SCC 109 and Coal India Ltd and Ors. v. Saroj Kumar Mishra (2007) 9 SCC 625 strenuously contends that sealed cover procedure can be adopted only after the date of issuance of charge memo and charge sheet inasmuch as it is only when a charge memo in the disciplinary proceeding or a charge sheet in a criminal case is issued to the employee it can be said that the departmental proceeding or/criminal prosecution is initiated against the employee, and also that withholding of Vigilance clearance in a case where neither charge sheet had been issued nor even the competent authority had formed an opinion for issue of charge is invalid. Para Nos. 8 and 16 of the judgment (SCC) in Union of India and Ors. v. K.V. Jankiraman and Ors. (supra) are quoted hereunder: 8. The common questions involved in all these matters relate to what in service jurisprudence has come to be known as "sealed cover procedure". Concisely stated, the questions are: (1) What is the date from which it can be said that disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending against an employee? (2) What is the course to be adopted when the employee is held guilty in such proceedings if the guilt merits punishment other than that of dismissal? (3) To what benefits an employee who is completely or partially exonerated is entitled to and from which date? The "sealed cover procedure" is adopted when an employee is due for promotion, increment etc. but disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending against him at the relevant time and hence, the findings of his entitlement to the benefit are kept in a sealed cover to be opened after the proceedings in question are over. Hence, the relevance and importance of the questions. 16. On the first question, viz., as to when for the purposes of the sealed cover procedure the disciplinary/criminal proceedings can be said to have commenced, the Full Bench of the Tribunal has held that it is only when a charge memo in a disciplinary proceedings or a 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. The sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after the charge-memo/charge sheet is issued. The pendency of preliminary investigation prior to that stage will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure. We are in agreement with the Tribimal on this point. The contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the Appellant-authorities 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. does not impress us. The acceptance of this contention would result in injustice to the employees in many cases. As has been the experience so far, the preliminary investigations take an inordinately long time and particularly when they are initiated at the instance of the interested persons, they are kept pending deliberately. Many times they never result in the issue of any charge-memo/charge-sheet. If the allegations are serious and the authorities are keen in 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 a resort to the sealed cover procedure. The authorities thus are not without a remedy. It was then contended on behalf of the authorities that conclusions Nos. 1 and 4 of the Full Bench of the Tribunal are inconsistent with each other. Those conclusions are as follows: (ATC p. 196, para 39) (1) Consideration for promotion, selection grade, crossing the efficiency bar or higher scale of pay cannot be withheld merely on the ground of pendency of a disciplinary or criminal proceedings against an official; (2)... (3)... (4) The sealed cover procedure can be resorted to only after a charge memo is served on the concerned official or the charge-sheet filed before the criminal Court and not before; 13. (3)... (4) The sealed cover procedure can be resorted to only after a charge memo is served on the concerned official or the charge-sheet filed before the criminal Court and not before; 13. Coming back to the present fact it is clear from the record that at the time of holding the said DPC dated 18.04.2007 there was no departmental proceedings or/criminal prosecution initiated against the Petitioner inasmuch as it is only when a charge memo in the disciplinary proceeding is issued to the Petitioner it can be said that departmental proceeding is initiated against the Petitioner. As stated above,in the present case, only after filing the present writ petition which was filed as early as December 2007, the Respondents issued charge memo i.e. charge-sheet only on 05.03.2008. 14. In the above admitted factual background this Court is of considered view that the recommendation of the said DPC held on 18.04.2007 which recommend the Petitioner for appointment by promotion to the post of Addl. DIGP, CRPF cannot be treated as if the recommendation had been placed in a sealed cover by the DPC; and also that his promotion basing on the recommendation of the DPC held on 18.04.2007 cannot be denied on the ground that the Petitioner was not free from Vigilance angle, his integrity has not been certified and also that the Petitioner is not medically fit. It is settled principles of law that the case of the writ Petitioner is to be decided on the fact and laws prevailing at the time of filing of the writ petition unless otherwise prevented by law. Admittedly, as stated above, there was no departmental proceeding against the Petitioner in the eye of law at the time of holding DPC i.e. on 18.04.2007 and also integrity of the Petitioner has been certified by the competent authority at the time of consideration of his case by the DPC held on 18.04.2007 and also medically fit at the time of consideration of his case by the said DPC dated 18.04.2007 for appointment by promotion to the post of Addl. DIGP, CRPF. Therefore, this Court has no alternative except to direct the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to promote the Petitioner to the post of Addl. DIGP, CRPF basing on the recommendation of the said DPC held on 18.04.2007. DIGP, CRPF. Therefore, this Court has no alternative except to direct the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to promote the Petitioner to the post of Addl. DIGP, CRPF basing on the recommendation of the said DPC held on 18.04.2007. Now the question to be decided by this Court is from which date the promotion of the Petitioner to the post of Addl. DIGP, CRPF would be effective. 15. Mr. Devananda, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner basing on the decision of the Apex Court in Nalini Kant Sinha v. State of Bihar and Ors. AIR 1993 SC 1358 and R.K. Sethi and Anr. v. Oil and Natural Gas Commission and Ors. (1997) 10 SCC 616 contends that notional promotion to the post of Addl. DIGP, CRPF should be given to the Petitioner w.e.f. the date of his junior was promoted to the post of Addl. DIGP, CRPF. In the instant case, the private Respondent No. 4, Prakash J. Mohane, who is admittedly junior to the Petitioner in the grade of Commandant was promoted to the post of Addl. DIGP vide order dated 11.12.2007. 16. Having considered the submission of learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, the admitted facts and the ratios laid down by the Apex Court in Nalini Kant Sinha (supra) and R.K. Sethi and Anr. v. Oil and Natural Gas Commission and Ors. (supra) this Court is of considered view that the notional promotion to the post of Addl. DIGP, CRPF should be given to the Petitioner w.e.f. the date of promotion of his junior i.e. Respondent No. 4 i.e. 11.12.2007; and the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are directed accordingly. 17. The whole exercise for complying the above directions of this Court should be completed by Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment and order. However, it is left to the wisdom of the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to take appropriate actions against the writ Petitioner, if necessary, pursuant to the result of the pending disciplinary proceedings after the writ Petitioner is promoted to the post of Addl. DIGP, CRPF on the recommendation of DPC held on 18.04.2007 in compliance with the direction of this Court. Writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.