ORDER : Devan Ramachandran, J. 1. In this DBP, we are greeted by a factual assertion that since the relevant service Regulations and Rules do not prescribe promotions to officers and employees under the Travancore Devaswom Board even when they are implicated with allegations of grave offences and delinquency, such officers have been promoted to high offices under it in the past and that this cannot be viewed as being illegal; such promotions not being expressly prohibited. The stated stand is, in effect, that what is not prohibited is permitted. 2. This DBP, therefore, raises very important questions as far as this Court is concerned, while acting under Devaswom Jurisdiction. 3. Even though the proceedings in this DBP commenced before the learned Ombudsman for the Tranvancore and Cochin Devaswom Boards upon an anonymous complaint, which would have normally not been entertained for that singular reason, the contents of the said complaint was compelling enough for proceedings to be continued. 4. The essential allegation in the complaint was that certain officers, who had been accused and charged under very serious counts by the Vigilance of the Devaswom Board and against whom crimes and cases were pending before police stations and the competent Criminal Courts, were still being favoured with promotions to very high offices and the complainant alleges that this is on account of confutative patronage they enjoy from the Devaswom Board. 5. Though the allegations in the complaint are specifically against three individuals, viz. Smt. Parvathy, who was originally working as a Deputy Devaswom Commissioner and later promoted to the post of Thiruvabharanam Commissioner; Shri V. Hareendranath, who was also working as a Deptuty Devaswom Commissioner and subsequently promoted to the post of Finance and Accounts Officer and Shri Gopakumar, who was a Head Clerk and later promoted as Assistant Commissioner of the Devaswom, the issues before us transcend these three individuals and assume a larger proportion because we are asked to consider whether officers who are facing such allegations should be allowed promotions, even when the extant promotion policy as also the applicable Regulations and Rules of the Devaswom Board does not prohibit it. 6. As regards the specifics of the complaint in this case is concerned, it is alleged that two among the three persons aforementioned, viz. 6. As regards the specifics of the complaint in this case is concerned, it is alleged that two among the three persons aforementioned, viz. Smt. Parvathy and Shri Gopakumar, had entered into a criminal conspiracy to allegedly appoint “Santhis” to the various temples, on the strength of forged/fabricated certificates and documents. As regards Shri Hareendranath is concerned, the allegation against him is that while he was working as an Administrative Officer of the Aranmula Parthasarathy Temple, some leaves of a particular Receipt Book was lost and that an enquiry was, thereafter, conducted by the Devaswom Vigilance, which is the subject matter of another proceedings before this Court, viz. DBAR No. 12 of 2012. 7. Pending this DBP, a memo was filed by the Senior Government Pleader, pursuant to our directions issued on 21.05.2018, placing on record a statement of the events relating to the charges/crime against the aforementioned three persons. In the said statement, dated 25.05.2018, it is equivocally stated that Smt. Parvathy, who is shown as accused No. 1 and Shri Gopakumar, who is arrayed as accused No. 2; along with four other persons, who are arrayed as accused Nos. 3 to 6 in the crime pending before the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Spl. Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, have entered into a criminal conspiracy on or after 10.03.2008 for the purpose of appointment of accused Nos. 3 to 6 as “Santhis” on the strength of fabricated certificates, said to have been obtained from the Thanthri and attached along with the respective applications. The Statement further says that after investigation, it is revealed that Smt. Parvathy and Shri Gopakumar have misused their official position and thereby included a number of ineligible candidates for the interview to the appointment of “Santhis” knowing that the certificates produced by them were clearly forged/fabricated. We are told by the learned Government Pleader that the case against these two individuals is now pending trial before the competent Court. 8. As regards Shri Hareendranath is concerned, since the statement referred above did not mention anything about him, we directed an additional statement to be filed, which has been placed on record by the learned Government Pleader, along with a memo dated 28.06.2018. 8. As regards Shri Hareendranath is concerned, since the statement referred above did not mention anything about him, we directed an additional statement to be filed, which has been placed on record by the learned Government Pleader, along with a memo dated 28.06.2018. In the additional Statement, it is averred that Shri Hareendranath, who was working as a Finance and Accounts Officer in the Devaswom Board, was not involved in the aforementioned crime in which Smt. Parvathy and Shri Gopakumar are arrayed as accused. However, we notice from the report of the learned Ombudsman that the allegations against Shri Hareendranath was not that he was involved in the crime along with Smt. Parvathy and Shri Gopakumr; but that while he was working in the Aranmula Temple, the leaves of certain Receipt Books were found lost. We are told today by the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board that the Aranmula Police have not registered a crime against Shri Hareendranath on this issue because they did not detect any offence and he says that he has obtained this information from the Police Inspector, Aranmula. Therefore, as far as Shri Hareendranath is concerned, since he is not involved in any criminal case, we are not required to make any further orders with respect to him. 9. From the afore narration, it becomes luculent that at least two among three above, viz., Smt. Parvathy and Shri Gopakumar, are still arrayed as accused in a crime and that it had been so when they were promoted. 10. This leads to a very distressing scenario, where even persons accused of such serious crimes, whether it be finally proved or otherwise, are automatically given promotions based on their seniority because the extant Service Regulations and Rules do not provide for any procedure akin to a 'Sealed Cover' procedure as is known in the Government Service Regulations in analogous situations. 11. The consequence is that even while employees and officers are involved in crimes like this, they are given promotions by the Board, leading to a situation where it would even appear to a common man that they had been given premium for dishonesty. 11. The consequence is that even while employees and officers are involved in crimes like this, they are given promotions by the Board, leading to a situation where it would even appear to a common man that they had been given premium for dishonesty. We are not, for a moment saying that the officers concerned are guilty, but we are concerned that since they are arrayed as accused, there would always be a legitimate suspicion in the minds of the public, when they are promoted even when such crimes are pending, that all is not well with respect to the process. 12. We, therefore, deem it now appropriate to place certain conditions on the Travancore Devaswom Board with respect to the promotions of officers who are involved in such crimes/cases. 13. We are of the firm view that if an officer is involved in a crime and a final Charge Sheet has already been laid against him/her before a Court of competent jurisdiction, then promotions cannot be given, save with the express permission of this Court to be obtained by the Board or the said officer, by making a suitable application. It will also be desirable for the Devaswom Board to keep this Court informed of the pendency of an FIR, even though final charge sheet is not filed, against any officer in the field of choice, so that accusations regarding unfair procedure can always be taken note of by this Court and suitable orders issued, if it is so required. That said, we reiterate that, however, when a Charge Sheet is filed, it shall be incumbent upon the Devaswom Board to seek permission of this Court before promotions are ordered. 14. Since we have only heard the learned Standing Counsel for the TDB in this case, these directions are, for the moment, confined to the said Board. However, we are certain in our mind that these should also apply to the various other Boards in Kerala, which we will finally decide as and when the occasion arises. 15. Coming to the specific factual factors presented in this DBP, we are told by the learned Standing Counsel for the Devaswom Board that both Smt. Parvathy and Shri Hareendranath have now retired from service. Therefore, there would be no further question of their promotions; but as regards Shri Gopakumar is concerned, he is stated to be still in service. 15. Coming to the specific factual factors presented in this DBP, we are told by the learned Standing Counsel for the Devaswom Board that both Smt. Parvathy and Shri Hareendranath have now retired from service. Therefore, there would be no further question of their promotions; but as regards Shri Gopakumar is concerned, he is stated to be still in service. Since these officers have already been promoted prior to our orders herein, we choose, as a matter of indulgence, not to disturb them but we clarify that all future promotions in the Board shall be done implicitly following our directions herein. 16. This DBP is thus ordered.