JUDGMENT : M.M. Kumar; CJ.:- 1. In this public interest litigation a number of issues of public importance have been raised and on numerous occasions this Court has issued various directions. One of the core orders was passed on 04.04.2014 when we have taken notice of three principal issues namely; a) The action taken in respect of 147 departmental enquiries pending against various gazetted officers. b) Appointment to the prosecuting agency to facilitate working of seven additional Sessions Judges, who were designated and empowered to adjudicate the corruption cases because the functioning of the Anti-Corruption Courts has virtually came to standstill on account of absence of the prosecutors. c) What were the interim arrangements to supply prosecuting officers to the seven additional Sessions Judges. This order would confine to first issue and by reference to individual illustration we would endeavour to gauge the colossal loss caused to the public cause by delay in finalization of departmental enquiry. Even such a delinquent employee would suffer if he is found innocent and charges are not proved. On that issue, reports from time to time have been filed and in the order dated 08.07.2014 we took specific notice of CMP No. 135/2014 highlighting the cases of Prof. N.K. Resutra, who was then working as Principal, Government Degree College Boys, Udhampur and Prof. Hernia Aggarwal, Principal Government Degree College, Paloura. In the case of Prof. N.K. Resutra, an enquiry had in fact been conducted and submitted on 20.08.2011. Thereafter a show cause notice was served on him on 09.09.2011. After the reply to the show cause was received by the respondents, the matter was referred to the Commission of Enquiries. In order dated 08.07.2014 we expressed our reservations with regard to the procedure followed in completion of the enquiry. We had disapproved the unnecessary and deliberate delay in completion of enquiry suspecting that someone in the higher echelons of administration was trying to shield Prof. N.K. Resutra. We had directed that action be taken on the show cause notice issued to both of them and the status report was to be filed before the next date of hearing. It has however been claimed that a regular departmental enquiry was required to be conducted. 2. On 13.11.2014 learned counsel for the petitioner had pointed out that despite pendency of a regular departmental enquiry contemplating infliction of major penalty, Prof. It has however been claimed that a regular departmental enquiry was required to be conducted. 2. On 13.11.2014 learned counsel for the petitioner had pointed out that despite pendency of a regular departmental enquiry contemplating infliction of major penalty, Prof. N.K. Resutra was appointed as Chairman of J & K State Board of School Education (for brevity, JKBOSE). We placed reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Subramabniam Swamy v. Manmohan Singh and Ors. (2012) 3 SCC 64 and Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman (1991) 4 SCC 109 to opine that when an officer is facing a regular departmental enquiry contemplating imposition of major penalty then he becomes ineligible for promotion to further higher post from the date of issuance of charge sheet (presentation of challan in the criminal Court). Keeping in view the aforesaid principles, we directed the Secretary to Government, General Administration Department as well as Secretary to Government, School Education Department to show cause as to why Prof. N.K. Resutra should not be asked to step down from the office of Chairman, JKBOSE till the time he is exonerated in the regular departmental enquiry pending against him. A notice was also issued to Prof. N.K. Resutra to show cause. 3. Reply duly supported by an affidavit and annexures has been filed by Prof. Resutra. Likewise objections were also filed by Secretary, Higher Education Department and Secretary to Government, School Education Department. 4. It is admitted as a fact that Prof. N.K. Resutra was considered and appointed as Chairman, JKBOSE. In the reply filed by Secretary to Government, School Education Department, it has been pointed out that Government constituted a Search Committee vide Government Order No. 822-Edu of 2013 dated 15.10.2013 for selection on the post of Chairman, JKBOSE, which comprised of Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department; Secretary to Govt., Higher Education Department; Secretary to Govt., Housing and Urban Development Department; Secretary to Govt. School Education Department and Sheikh Bashir Ahmed, Ex. Chairman, JKBOSE (AnnexureR-3). The Committee took the decision to invite applications along with full bio-data of the candidates by issuing advertisement notice for the position of Chairman, JKBOSE and Secretary, JKBOSE. For the post of Chairman, JKBOSE six names were short listed, which are as under:- 1. Prof. N.K. Resutra 2. Dr. Bhopinder Singh 3. Dr. Meenakshi Kilam 4. Dr. Khursheed Ahmad But 5. Prof. For the post of Chairman, JKBOSE six names were short listed, which are as under:- 1. Prof. N.K. Resutra 2. Dr. Bhopinder Singh 3. Dr. Meenakshi Kilam 4. Dr. Khursheed Ahmad But 5. Prof. Zahoor Ahmad Chatt 6. Prof/Dr. Satinder Singh. 5. The aforesaid fact is evident from the minutes of the meeting of the committee dated 06.03.2014. Eventually on 20.10.2014 a panel of two names for appointment to the post of Chairman, JKBOSE, in order of suitability was recommended by the Search Committee. The names of selected candidates were Prof. Zahoor Ahmad Chatt, the then Principal Government Degree College, Anantnag and Prof. N.K. Resutra, Nodal Principal GGM Science College, Jammu in order of merit. A perusal of the minutes of the meeting of the Committee reveals that earlier to finalizing the two names, the Committee had met and the minutes had been signed by the Secretary to Govt., School Education Department, Secretary to Govt., Higher Education Department, Secretary to Govt., Housing and Urban Development Department and the Former Chairman, JKBOSE. On 22.10.2014, Secretary to Govt., School Education Department issued notification, SRO 452 appointing Prof. N.K. Resutra as Chairman, JKBOSE for a period of two years (Annexure R-11). 6. In the affidavit filed by Secretary to Govt., Higher Education it has been conceded that a representation sent by Prof. S.K. Bhalla was received through the office of Chief Minister on 19.12.2013 with regard to the delay in taking conclusive action against Prof. N.K. Resutra. It is also conceded that representation contained allegations of mis-appropriation of funds and abuse of power by various officers of Higher Education Department including Prof. Resutra, the then Principal GGM Science College, Jammu in his capacity as Principal Government Degree College, Rajouri. The Higher Education Department started making efforts to collect relevant record in respect of the allegations made against Prof. Resutra. Thereafter on 20.05.2014 the Vigilance Organization sent a communication for initiating regular departmental enquiry against Prof. Resutra in accordance with J & K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 (for brevity, J & K CCA Rules) (Annexure-II). The Vigilance Organization had leveled various allegations against Prof. Resutra concerning mis-appropriation/embezzlement and violation of codal formalities. The allegations pertain to wastage and diversion of local funds also. The record was reconstructed by the higher education department, which is stated to have been gutted in fire in the Civil Secretariat at Srinagar. The Vigilance Organization had leveled various allegations against Prof. Resutra concerning mis-appropriation/embezzlement and violation of codal formalities. The allegations pertain to wastage and diversion of local funds also. The record was reconstructed by the higher education department, which is stated to have been gutted in fire in the Civil Secretariat at Srinagar. The record reveals that a committee headed by Director, College was constituted vide government order No. 209-HE of 2011 dated 27.04.2011 to enquire allegations leveled against Prof. Resutra as all the documents were not available after the fire incident. Inferences were drawn from the available documents as to the sequence of events and the action taken at different stages. As revealed from the copy of the statement of imputations framed against Prof. N.K. Resutra, the committee enquired into the allegations and submitted its report to the Higher Education Department mentioning the irregularities committed by Prof. Resutra while making purchases, carrying out repairs/renovations of the building. The report of the committee is not forthcoming from the record. On the basis of the enquiry report a charge sheet had been served upon Prof. Resutra in terms of Rules 33 of J & K CCA Rules. Reply of the accused officer was not traceable from the record yet it was concluded by the Higher Education Department that it was not convinced with his reply. 7. As a result the Commission of Enquiries was appointed vide Government order No. 373-HE of 2012 dated 20.09.2012 as enquiry officer for the purpose of conducting enquiry into the charges of irregularities and mis-use of local funds in Government Degree College, Rajouri (Annexure-IV). The matter remained pending there for two years. It was then decided to withdraw the case from the Commission of Enquires. As a matter of tact, the case was withdrawn from the Commission of Enquiries on 23.07.2014 and it was entrusted to Director Colleges, who was appointed as enquiry officer One Sh. Mohammad Reyaz, Under Secretary Higher Education Department was appointed as Presenting Officer. Thereafter on 08.08.2014 (Annexure-V) the Project Director, Rashtriya Uchhtar Shiksha Abhiyan was appointed as enquiry officer. The Project Director proceeded for Haj and Mrs. Kiran Bakshi, Principal Government College for Women, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, who was senior to the delinquent officer, was appointed as enquiry officer vide government order No. 456-HE of 2014 dated 30.09.2014 (Annexure-VI). 8. Thereafter on 08.08.2014 (Annexure-V) the Project Director, Rashtriya Uchhtar Shiksha Abhiyan was appointed as enquiry officer. The Project Director proceeded for Haj and Mrs. Kiran Bakshi, Principal Government College for Women, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, who was senior to the delinquent officer, was appointed as enquiry officer vide government order No. 456-HE of 2014 dated 30.09.2014 (Annexure-VI). 8. In the penultimate para the Secretary to Govt., Higher Education Department has pointed out that enquiry report was received in the department on 27.10.2014, which was examined. It was found that the enquiry officer did not summon the presenting officer nor the delinquent officer was provided any opportunity of oral enquiry. The enquiry officer had recorded findings only with regard to the excess payment in the purchases and installation of Wi-Fi system whereas article of charges served on Prof. Resutra contained many more charges of irregularities and improper utilization of funds in Government Degree College, Rajouri. As a consequence, the enquiry was referred back to the enquiry officer for doing the needful. 9. Prof. Resutra has also filed his own affidavit asserting that nothing adverse has been found against him by the vigilance organization although it has been specifically directed that appropriate action be taken against those persons responsible for the loss of software CDs/Keys. The stand of the delinquent officer is the same to that of Secretary Higher Education with regard to appointment of various enquiry officers and submission of reports by Mrs. Kiran Bakshi. Likewise the stand is also similar with regard to Search Committee. However, it has been asserted that the enquiry report submitted by Mrs. Kiran Bakshi was known to the Secretary to Govt., Higher Education Department who was a member of the Selection Committee. The consideration/evaluation of various candidates who competed in the selection process was carried on 19.102.2014 and 20.102.104, at Srinagar and Jammu. After submission of the enquiry report he has rightly been appointed on 22.10.2014 as Chairman, JKBOSE. He has also joined as such and is performing his duties. 10. We have heard Mr. S.S. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Gagan Basotra, Sr. AAG, Mr. Ravinder Sharma, AAG and Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for Prof. Resutra. Mrs. Sindhu Sharma, ASGI has also put in appearance on behalf of Union of India. 11. A close security of the objections would reveal some material facts. It is shown that Prof. S.S. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Gagan Basotra, Sr. AAG, Mr. Ravinder Sharma, AAG and Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for Prof. Resutra. Mrs. Sindhu Sharma, ASGI has also put in appearance on behalf of Union of India. 11. A close security of the objections would reveal some material facts. It is shown that Prof. Resutra has been facing charges of misappropriation/embezzlement. A charge sheet for that purpose was issued for inflicting major penalty. It is further admitted that the Vigilance Organization has investigated charges concerning repair and renovation of principal quarter, office chamber, computer laboratory; Veranda and foot path and purchase of Gymnasium equipments/sports items; purchase and installation of Wi-Fi; purchase and installation of water purifiers and disposal of non-serviceable items. In para 2 of the affidavit filed by Secretary to Government Higher Education Department dated 24.11.2014, it has been stated that, "based on the enquiry report submitted by the Committee, a charge sheet had been served upon Prof. N.K. Resutra in terms of Rule 33 of J & K CCA Rules, 1956. The reply of the accused officer has not been traceable from the records. However, it is concluded that not convinced with the reply of Prof. Resutra, the Government, vide Government Order No. 373-HE of 2012 dated 20.09.2012, appointed the Commissioner of Enquiries as Enquiry Officer for the purpose of conducting enquiry into the charges of irregularities and misuse of local funds in Government Degree College, Rajouri (Annexure IV)". 12. Rule 33 of CCA Rules clearly contemplates that no major penalty be inflicted on a delinquent officer, like dismissal, removal or reduction in rank other than the one based on facts which had led to his conviction in a criminal Court or by a Court Martial, without informing the delinquent in writing of the grounds on which it is proposed to take action and in which he has been afforded an adequate opportunity of defending himself. It is conceded fact that charge-sheet against Prof. Resutra was issued and some enquiry was conducted by Prof. Kiran Bakshi, which has remained pending. 13. Can in such a situation a person be considered for a coveted position of Chairman, JKBOSE who has to inspire public confidence by performing various duties associated with selection, appointment, examination and many others. It is conceded fact that charge-sheet against Prof. Resutra was issued and some enquiry was conducted by Prof. Kiran Bakshi, which has remained pending. 13. Can in such a situation a person be considered for a coveted position of Chairman, JKBOSE who has to inspire public confidence by performing various duties associated with selection, appointment, examination and many others. A public servant who is to hold such sensitive position must be above the needle of suspicion, like Caesar's wife. 14. The matter is no longer res Integra. In a sensitive post like Chairman Public Service Commission, Services Selection Board or Chairman BOSE, the guidance is available in the form of various principles laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Centre for public Interest Litigation and anr. v. Union of India and another (2005) 8 SCC 202 . In that case the person was appointed to the key post of Chief Secretary who was facing charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act and even sanction to prosecute her had been obtained. It was in those circumstances that Hon'ble Supreme court observed that "time has come when the postings of officers holding sensitive posts should be done in transparent manner giving no scope for any grievance. It is true that grievances can be made or allegations can be levelled for ulterior motive or with the intention of damaging the reputation of an officer who is likely to be appointed in a sensitive post, very often at the behest of person angling for the post However, in the peculiar background facts it was really desirable for the State Government to steer clear of controversy and not to post respondent 3 as the Chief Secretary. By doing it, has unnecessarily created further complications and invited criticism." Accordingly the Chief Secretary was ordered to be transferred. Thus it is settled that if there is any doubt with regard to the antecedents of a candidate the benefit of doubt should go to institute and not to the individual. 15. It is equally well settled that when a charge sheet contemplating major penalty is pending against an officer, then such an officer cannot be granted promotion. The officer has to wait till he is given clearance. 15. It is equally well settled that when a charge sheet contemplating major penalty is pending against an officer, then such an officer cannot be granted promotion. The officer has to wait till he is given clearance. In the case of K.V. Jankiraman's case (supra) it has been held as under:- "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. To deny promotion the disciplinary/criminal proceedings must be at the relevant time pending at the stage when charge-memo/charge-sheet has already been issued to the employee. The pendency of preliminary investigation prior to that stage will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure. 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 finalize the charges. Further, if the charges are that serious, the authorities have the power to suspend the employee under the relevant rules and suspension by itself permits a resort to the sealed cover procedure. The authorities, thus are not without a remedy. This finding of the Full Bench of the Tribunal is, therefore, acceptable." (Emphasis added) 16. When we apply the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments to the facts of the case in hand, it becomes clear that enquiry proceedings were pending against Prof. Resutra since 2011 till date. A charge sheet for holding regular departmental enquiry was pending on the last date of filing applications for the post of Chairman J & K BOSE i.e. 31.12.2013. The proceedings were still pending when panel of two names including the name of Prof. N.K. Resutra was finalized and Government Order SRO 452 dated 22.10.2014 was issued. The enquiry proceedings have not concluded so far. In that regard advertisement notice for the post has been placed on record. The last date was later extended to 25.01.2014 (Annexure R4 and R5). Therefore; he was not eligible for promotion/appointment. Prof. N.K. Resutra was finalized and Government Order SRO 452 dated 22.10.2014 was issued. The enquiry proceedings have not concluded so far. In that regard advertisement notice for the post has been placed on record. The last date was later extended to 25.01.2014 (Annexure R4 and R5). Therefore; he was not eligible for promotion/appointment. Prof. Resutra was facing the charges on the date of interview held on 20.10.2014 and the position was same on the date of issuance of notification appointing him as Chairman J & K BOSE on 22.10.2014. Therefore, it cannot be argued that Prof. Resutra was exonerated of the charges nor any such stand has been taken either in the affidavit filed by Prof. Resutra or Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department or by the Secretary School Education Department. 17. Few arguments of Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned senior counsel appearing for Prof. Resutra may now be noticed. It was submitted that on 20.10.2014 Prof. Resutra was exonerated of the charges by the enquiry report submitted by Prof. Kiran Bakshi. There is nothing to suggest that Prof. Kiran Bakshi has exonerated Prof. Resutra in her report. On the contrary the record reveals that Prof. Kiran Bakshi was not able to conduct any enquiry in accordance with the requirement of rules. Another submission made by Mr. Sethi is that this litigation has been initiated at the instance of Prof. Zahoor Ahmad Chatt who has been recommended in order of suitability at serial No. 1. According to Mr. Sethi, Prof. Chatt has already challenged SRO 452 dated 22.10.2014 in a separate petition which is pending in the Srinagar Wing of this Court. We are unable to persuade ourselves to accept that the proceedings against Prof. Resutra have been initiated at the instance of Prof. Chatt. We say so for the reason that this Court had taken notice of irregularities committed by Prof. Resutra before the advertisement was issued inviting applications for appointment as Chairman J & K BOSE. 1 Jus Public Interest Litigation was pending in respect of various departmental enquiries and deliberate delay caused in their disposal by vested interest. On 08.07.2014 a detailed order was passed making reference to CMP No. 135/2014 where along with the case of Prof. Resutra the case of Prof. Hernia Aggarwal, Principal Government Degree College Paloura was also noticed. 1 Jus Public Interest Litigation was pending in respect of various departmental enquiries and deliberate delay caused in their disposal by vested interest. On 08.07.2014 a detailed order was passed making reference to CMP No. 135/2014 where along with the case of Prof. Resutra the case of Prof. Hernia Aggarwal, Principal Government Degree College Paloura was also noticed. Therefore, it cannot be argued that the proceedings have been initiated for issuance of directions to Prof. Resutra to step down from the post of Chairman J & K BOSE at the instance of Prof. Chatt because he has now here been in picture on 08.07.2014. Thus we reject the aforesaid submission. 18. For the reasons aforementioned we direct Secretary to Government Higher Education Department as well as Secretary to Government. School Education Department to pass appropriate orders suspending SRO 452 dated 22.10.2014 and re-consider the matter after the regular departmental enquiry is completed. If the Enquiry Officer exonerates Prof. Resutra then the matter be re-considered. In case Prof. Resutra is found guilty of charges then SRO 452 dated 22.10.2014 shall be deemed to be withdrawn. As a consequence Prof. Resutra shall stop functioning as Chairman J & K BOSE forthwith. However, he shall continue on the post of Principal as co-posting to be given to him by the Higher Education Department. The needful shall be done within a period of two weeks. Respondent-State is also directed to conclude the enquiry expeditiously preferable within a period of two months. We also wish to make it clear that any observation made in this order shall not be construed by the enquiry officer or by the authorities as an expression of opinion on the charges leveled against Prof. Resutra. This order seeks to apply the principles of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the judgments referred above and endeavour to provide clean administration. We further direct the respondents to file a detailed status report with regard to Prof. Hernia Aggarwal before the next date of hearing fixed in the main case.