JUDGMENT : BISWAJIT MOHANTY, J. 1. The State of Odisha and its officers have filed the present writ application praying for quashing of the order dated 20.7.2015 passed by the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No. 839 of 2014, whereby the learned Tribunal had directed to open the sealed cover in respect of promotion of opposite party no. 1 to the rank of Deputy Executive Engineer and Executive Engineer from the date his junior was promoted, if he was otherwise found suitable for such promotion and if there was no other legal impediment. While passing the impugned order dated 20.7.2015, the learned Tribunal had made it clear that the promotion given to the opposite party no. 1 shall only be ad hoc, subject to final result of vigilance case/departmental proceeding pending against him and petitioner no. 1 is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per rules after conclusion of the said vigilance case/departmental proceeding. 2. The case of the petitioners is that the learned Tribunal had illegally given the above direction notwithstanding pendency of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 8 of 2007 and Vigilance P.S. Case No. 8 of 2008 against him and so also pendency of disciplinary proceeding against opposite party no. 1. According to the petitioners, in 2007, Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S. Case No. 8 of 2007 was registered against opposite party no. 1 on the allegation of misappropriation of government money towards cost of rice received under F.F.W. and SGRY Scheme without executing any work. Again in 2008, Bhubaneswar Vigilance Case No. 8 of 2008 has been registered against opposite party no. 1 on the allegation of acquiring disproportionate assets. Further, according to the petitioners in Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S. Case No. 8 of 2007, cognizance of offences was taken by the appropriate court on 5.7.2012. While so, on 6.3.2013, charge memo was issued to opposite party no. 1 vide Annexure-3 to the Original Application No. 839 of 2014 filed by opposite party no. 1, which has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ application. On receipt of the charge sheet in disciplinary proceeding on 3.6.2013, opposite party no. 1 has filed his written statement on defence vide Annexure-4 attached to O.A. No. 839 of 2014. 1 vide Annexure-3 to the Original Application No. 839 of 2014 filed by opposite party no. 1, which has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ application. On receipt of the charge sheet in disciplinary proceeding on 3.6.2013, opposite party no. 1 has filed his written statement on defence vide Annexure-4 attached to O.A. No. 839 of 2014. During pendency of the disciplinary proceeding, on 30.10.2013, learned Vigilance Court, Bhubaneswar took cognizance of offence under Section 13 (2) read with Section 1 (c) (d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and Sections 409/468/417 of I.P.C. against the opposite party no. 1 and others in T.R. Case No. 44 of 2012. On 3.12.2013, the Enquiry Officer was appointed in order to enquire into the allegation made in the charge memo dated 6.3.2013. In such background, on 21.2.2014, Departmental Promotion Committee sat to consider the case of Assistance Executive Engineer for promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer. According to the petitioners, on account of pendency of two Vigilance/Criminal Proceedings and the departmental proceeding though the case of opposite party no. 1 was considered for promotion, however, the same was put in sealed cover. Again on 22.2.2014, D.P.C. sat to consider the case of promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer to Executive Engineer. Again on account of pendency of criminal proceeding as well as disciplinary proceeding, the case of opposite party no. 1 was considered and put in sealed cover. When the juniors were given promotion to the rank of Deputy Executive Engineer and Asst. Executive Engineer; on 21.3.2014, the opposite party no. 1 filed representation to petitioner no. 1 for promoting him to the rank of Deputy Executive Engineer and Executive Engineer from the date when his juniors got promotion. Sometime thereafter, opposite party no. 1 has filed O.A. No. 839 of 2014 before the learned Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar with prayer to open the sealed cover and to give him promotion to the rank of Deputy Executive Engineer and Executive Engineer from the date his junior Lingaraj Gouda got promotion, if he was found suitable by D.P.C. He further prayed for a direction to petitioners to hold a review D.P.C. to consider his case for promotion to the rank of Deputy Executive Engineer and Executive Engineer without taking into account the pendency of vigilance Case and disciplinary proceeding and to allow him all financial and consequential service benefits. As indicated earlier, the learned Tribunal vide its order dated 20.7.2015 disposed of O.A. No. 839 of 2014 directing the petitioners to open the sealed cover in respect of promotion of opposite party no. 1 to the rank of Deputy Executive Engineer and Executive Engineer from the date when his juniors were promoted, if he has been otherwise found suitable for such promotion if there is no other legal impediment. Challenging the same, the present writ application has been filed. 3. Mr. Sahoo, learned Addl. Government Advocate submitted that in passing such orders, the learned Tribunal has wrongly relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others v. Chaman Lal Goyal, (1995) 2 SCC 570 , which has no application to the present case. In other words, Mr. Sahoo, learned Addl. Government Advocate contended that the above noted decision is factually distinguishable. 4. On the contrary, Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 1 stoutly defended the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal and contended that the interference by this Court is not warranted as there exists no error apparent on the face of the impugned order. He further submitted that learned Tribunal has rightly allowed the prayer of opposite party no. 1 relying on the decision of State of Punjab (supra). He further submitted that since similarly placed persons like Prasanta Kumar Mishra and Subrata Das have been given promotion during pendency of disciplinary proceeding/ vigilance case, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has gone wrong in passing the impugned order in favour of opposite party no. 1. Lastly, he submitted that even as per the decision rendered by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 22560 of 2015 (State of Odisha and Purna Chandra Das and others) disposed of on 29.8.2016 directing the appointing authority to consider the case of opposite party no. 1 therein for adhoc promotion following the Circular dated 4.7.1995, the order of Tribunal did not require any interference. 5. In reply, Mr. Sahoo, learned Addl. Government Advocate contended that in the case of State of Odisha v. Purna Chandra Das and others (supra), this Court nowhere directed for opening of sealed cover but directed that the circular dated 4.7.1995 issued by the General Administration should be followed for considering the case of opposite party no. 5. In reply, Mr. Sahoo, learned Addl. Government Advocate contended that in the case of State of Odisha v. Purna Chandra Das and others (supra), this Court nowhere directed for opening of sealed cover but directed that the circular dated 4.7.1995 issued by the General Administration should be followed for considering the case of opposite party no. 1 therein for adhoc promotion as more than two years have elapsed from the last DPC held in that case. Further, Mr. Sahoo, learned Addl. Government Advocate placed reliance on G.A. Department Circular No. 11962 dated 28.5.2012 and submitted that it has been made clear therein that sealed cover procedure should be adopted in all criminal cases where cognizance has been taken by the appropriate court. He further pointed out that the opposite party no. 1 has never challenged the Circular dated 28.5.2012 though the same was filed as Annxure-C to the counter filed by the petitioners before the learned Tribunal. The Circular dated 28.5.2012 issued by the G.A. Department has been filed here as Annexure-5. 6. Heard Mr. M. Sahoo, learned Addl. Government Advocate on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 1. 7. It is undisputed that by the time D.P.C. sat for considering the case of promotion from the rank of Asst. Executive Engineer to Deputy Executive Engineer on 21.2.2014 and for considering the case of promotion of Deputy Executive Engineer to the post of Executive Engineer on 22.2.2014, two vigilance/criminal proceedings were pending against the opposite party no. 1 where the appropriate courts have taken cognizance of offences against opposite party no. 1. On the said dates, the disciplinary proceeding initiated vide charge memo dated 6.3.2013 against the opposite party no. 1 was also pending. In such background, we have to appreciate the rival contentions made at the bar. In this connection, we have to first see whether the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others v. Chaman Lal Goyal (supra) has any application to the facts of the present case. In our humble opinion, the facts of the said case are clearly distinguishable and accordingly the ratio decided therein has no application to the present case. The said case nowhere revolved around the issue of opening of sealed cover, which is the issue here. In our humble opinion, the facts of the said case are clearly distinguishable and accordingly the ratio decided therein has no application to the present case. The said case nowhere revolved around the issue of opening of sealed cover, which is the issue here. Further in that case, no criminal case was pending against Shri Chaman Lal Goyal whereas in the present case two criminal cases were pending against opposite no. 1 by the date the D.P.Cs. sat to consider the cases for promotion. Moreover in that case the issue was for quashing of charge memo in the departmental proceeding on the ground of delay whereas the same is not the issue here. Though the High Court entertained the writ application of Shri Chaman Lal Goyal, in which prayer was made for quashing of charges and appointment of the Enquiry Officer, however, the enquiry was not stayed. Accordingly, the enquiry proceeded to a large extent. Here, there is no prayer for quashing of charge memo dated 6.3.2013. In such background, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed that the case of Shri Chaman Lal Goyal should be considered for promotion without reference to and without taking into consideration the charge or pendency of the said enquiry, if he is found fit for promotion. However, at the same time, it was made clear that the said direction was made in peculiar facts and circumstances of that particular case though the Hon’ble Supreme Court was aware that rules and practices normally followed in such case might be different. But as indicated earlier, here is a case where charge memo dated 6.3.2013 was never challenged by opposite party no. 1 and he only wanted lifting of the sealed cover for getting the benefit of promotion to the posts of Deputy Executive Engineer and Executive Engineer if he has been found fit by the D.P.C. Here, the main issue revolves around the legality of the direction of the Tribunal relating to opening of sealed cover. Therefore, we are inclined to accept the contention of Mr. Sahoo, learned Addl. Government Advocate that the Tribunal has gone wrong in relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others v. Chaman Lal Goyal (supra) for directing to open the sealed cover in respect of promotion of opposite party no. 1. Therefore, we are inclined to accept the contention of Mr. Sahoo, learned Addl. Government Advocate that the Tribunal has gone wrong in relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others v. Chaman Lal Goyal (supra) for directing to open the sealed cover in respect of promotion of opposite party no. 1. Further, though the attention of learned Tribunal was drawn to G.A. Department Circular dated 28.5.2012 under Annexure-5 to the present writ application and though the same has been noted at Paragraph-4 of the order, however, the learned Tribunal has nowhere discussed about the impact of the said order on the present case. The said resolution dated 28.5.2012 as noted earlier makes it clear that sealed cover procedure should be followed in all criminal cases where cognizance has been taken by the court. Here, it is not disputed that by the time the D.P.Cs sat in February, 2014, cognizance of offences against the opposite party no. 1 have been taken in both the criminal proceedings. In such background also, the order of the Tribunal in directing to open the sealed cover becomes legally vulnerable. With regard to contention of the learned counsel for opposite party no. 1 relating to promotion of Prasanta Kumar Mishra and Subrata Das during pendency of disciplinary proceeding and vigilance case, we may indicate here that facts relating to those promotions are not very clear. May be that, their case have been considered in accordance with G.A. Department Circular dated 4.7.1995. In case they have been given promotion contrary to 4.7.1995 circular, the opposite party no. 1 cannot derive any benefit from the same. We, however, hasten to add that any observation made herein shall not in any way prejudicially affect said Prasanta Kumar Mishra and Subrata Das. With regard to the last submission of Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1 that the direction of the Tribunal as contained in the impugned order need not be interfered with as the same is in consonance with the judgment rendered by this Court, in the case of State of Odisha and others v. Purna Chandra Das and others (W.P. (C) No. 22560 of 2015) disposed of on 29.8.2016, we are unable to accept the said contention for the following reasons. That case revolved around the legality of direction of the Tribunal to open the sealed cover and to give promotion on ad hoc basis in view of G.A. Department memo No. 14641 dated 4.7.1995. This Court in that judgment has made it clear that the circular dated 4.7.1995 does not deal with opening of sealed cover for giving regular promotion. The said circular relates to allowing the government servant ad hoc promotion in a case where a criminal prosecution/disciplinary proceeding against the government employee has not come to an end even after expiry of two years from the date of meeting of first Departmental Promotion Committee and not for opening of sealed cover to give regular promotion. Thus, in such background, the direction of the learned Tribunal to open the sealed cover and to grant promotion to opposite party no. 1 to the rank of Deputy Executive Engineer and Executive Engineer if he has been found otherwise suitable from the date when his juniors were promoted is legally vulnerable. It may also be noted here that in the present case, charge memo in departmental proceeding was issued on 6.3.2013 and the opposite party no. 1 had also filed his reply on 3.6.2013 and the said proceeding was pending on the date D.P.Cs were convened. In such background also, the direction to open the sealed cover was wrong. 8. Considering all these facts, we have no hesitation in setting aside the direction of the learned Tribunal for opening of sealed cover with regard to promotion of the opposite party no. 1 to the rank of Deputy Executive Engineer and Executive Engineer from the date his juniors got promoted and other consequential directions. However since in this case, the Departmental Promotion Committee held its meeting in February, 2014 and in the meantime more than two years have expired, we direct the petitioners to act strictly in accordance with the Clauses-2 (iii) and 3 of the G.A. Department Resolution No. 14641 dated 4.7.1995 for considering the case of opposite party no. 1 for ad hoc promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer and Executive Engineer. The entire exercise should be completed within a period of two months from the date of this judgment. 9. Before closing the matter, we think it appropriate to bring certain things to the notice of the petitioners. 1 for ad hoc promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer and Executive Engineer. The entire exercise should be completed within a period of two months from the date of this judgment. 9. Before closing the matter, we think it appropriate to bring certain things to the notice of the petitioners. Though the Government in G.A. Department has issued Circular No. 14641/Gen. dated 4.7.1995 for reviewing the withheld promotion cases after expiry of two years from the date of 1st meeting of D.P.C., however, we often find that such review is not undertaken within a reasonable time after expiry of two years from the date of 1st meeting of D.P.C. This ultimately results in defeating the spirit of G.A. Department Circular dated 4.7.1995 which was brought in to ameliorate the grievance of the government servants against whom criminal prosecution/disciplinary proceeding have been pending for a long time. Therefore, the appropriate authorities should be directed to scrupulously follow the guidelines as contained in the G.A. Department Circular dated 4.7.1995 within a reasonable time after expiry of two years from the date of holding of the 1st D.P.C. so that the withheld promotion cases can be reviewed. In other words, the process of review of withheld promotion should not be unduly delayed as it would negate the purpose and spirit of G.A. Department Circular dated 14641/Gen. dated 4.7.1995. 10. Accordingly, the writ application is disposed of. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Odisha for further consequential action as observed above. I. Mahanty, J. – I agree.