JUDGMENT : Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J. Heard Sri H.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Uday Veer Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- "(I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties to open the sealed cover procedure, wherein recommendation of the D.P.C. held in the year 2016 has been kept in sealed cover procedure, while the juniors to the petitioner has been promoted vide order dated 30.09.2016. (II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to promote the petitioner with all the incidental and consequential service benefits including arrears of salary for the post of Additional Director (Level-V) in the pay scale of Rs.37400-67000 grade pay Rs.8900 with effect from 30.09.2016. (III) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to extend the benefits of the 4th A.C.P. on completion of 24 years continuous satisfactory service with effect from 01.12.2008." 3. The contention of Sri H.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner is that one departmental inquiry, which was initiated against the petitioner in the year 2011, has been finally concluded on 27.10.2017 as office memo to that effect has been issued by the Secretary of the Department, which is contained as Annexure No.6 to the writ petition. On account of the aforesaid inquiry, the candidature of the petitioner was kept under sealed cover and since the said inquiry has been concluded wherein the petitioner has been exonerated, the sealed cover should be opened. 4. In the meantime, the petitioner has been informed that vide office memo dated 20.11.2015 one more departmental inquiry was initiated, therefore, the petitioner preferred a representation dated 05.02.2016, which is contained as Annexure No.8 to the writ petition, demanding the copy of the charge-sheet, if any, from the Enquiry Officer i.e. the Additional Director, Medical Health & Family Welfare, Agra Division, Agra. Even the Enquiry Officer has also preferred a letter dated 12.11.2018 to the Director General, Medical & Health Services, U.P., Lucknow for providing the charge-sheet to the petitioner. However, on 01.11.2019, the statement was given by the State Counsel before the Court that the charge-sheet has been served upon the petitioner. Even the Enquiry Officer has also preferred a letter dated 12.11.2018 to the Director General, Medical & Health Services, U.P., Lucknow for providing the charge-sheet to the petitioner. However, on 01.11.2019, the statement was given by the State Counsel before the Court that the charge-sheet has been served upon the petitioner. Therefore, this Court vide order dated 01.11.2019 directed the learned Standing Counsel to produce the copy of the charge-sheet with the proof of service fixing the date on 04.11.2019. 5. On 05.11.2019, Dr. Uday Veer Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel has produced the copy of the charge-sheet. On 05.11.2019, this Court has passed the order as under:- "Heard Sri H.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Udai Veer Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. This Court has passed the order dated 01.11.2019 as under:- "Learned Standing Counsel states that chargesheet is served upon the petitioner and enquiry would completed within one month. However, he does not have copy of the chargesheeet. He prays for a day's time to produce before this court the service report of the chargesheet upon the petitioner. Put up this case on 04-11-2019." In compliance of the aforesaid order, learned Add.C.S.C. has produced the copy of letter dated 04.11.2019 preferred on behalf of the Director General, Medical & Health Services, U.P., Lucknow addressing to the Chief Standing Counsel, High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow enclosing therewith the copy of one letter dated 22.10.2019 preferred by one Sri J. L.Yadav, Under Secretary, Government of U.P., Lucknow to the Additional Director, Medical, Health and Family Welfare, Agra Division, Agra and the charge-sheet dated 22.10.2019 relating to the petitioner and another charge-sheet dated 22.10.2019 relating to one Dr. V.K. Gupta have been enclosed. The photocopy of the aforesaid instructions letter and the documents are being taken on record. The perusal of the aforesaid letters clearly reveals that the issue in question is of the year 2015 and it appears that no charge-sheet has been issued against the petitioner since 2015 till date. Even the charge-sheet dated 22.10.2019, which is said to have been issued against the petitioner, has not been served upon the petitioner, as no service report has been indicated in these letters. Further, even the single charge, which has been levelled against the petitioner vide charge-sheet dated 22.10.2019, does not indicate any culpability of the petitioner in the issue. Even the charge-sheet dated 22.10.2019, which is said to have been issued against the petitioner, has not been served upon the petitioner, as no service report has been indicated in these letters. Further, even the single charge, which has been levelled against the petitioner vide charge-sheet dated 22.10.2019, does not indicate any culpability of the petitioner in the issue. Prima-facie, it appears that this is half hearted exercise being carried out, resultant thereof, the petitioner is approaching the competent authorities time to time but to no avail. As a matter of fact, these letters do not satisfy the query of the Court dated 01.11.2019. Dr. Udai Veer Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel prays for and is granted 24 hours time to seek complete instructions in the matter, particularly on the point as to whether any charge-sheet has been prepared, which is directly relating with the allegations against the petitioner, and if so, as to whether the same has been served upon the petitioner or not. List/put up this case on 07.11.2019 in the additional cause list." 6. Today, Dr. Uday Veer Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has apprised the Court that the said charge-sheet has been provided to the Enquiry Officer but there is no service report with him to show the Court as to whether the said charge-sheet has been served upon the petitioner or not. 7. Sri H.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted with vehemence that till date no charge-sheet has been served upon the petitioner. 8. In support of his submission, Sri Gupta has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Union of India etc. vs. K.V. Jankiraman etc., (1991) 4 SCC 109 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the initiation of the departmental inquiry would be considered to be commenced with effect from the date of service of the charge-sheet and if the charge-sheet is not served upon the employee, it may not be said that the departmental inquiry against the incumbent is pending. The aforesaid dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court has been considered in various cases by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court. The aforesaid dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court has been considered in various cases by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in re: Harish Kumar Sharma, IFS vs. State of Punjab and another reported in has followed the dictum of K.V. Jankiraman, (2017) 4 SCC 366 (supra) and held in paras-16 and 17 as under:- "16. The employee in respect of whom chargesheet has been issued and the disciplinary proceedings are pending or in respect of whom prosecution for criminal charge is pending, his assessment is to be kept in a sealed cover and is not to be given effect to. The question is as to when prosecution for criminal charge is treated to have been 'pending'. This aspect came up for consideration in K.V. Jankiraman's case and the Court held that sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after the charge memo/chargesheet is issued, as is clear from the following passage in para 16 of the judgment: "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 Tribunal 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. 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..." 17. In view of the aforesaid law laid down by this Court, the crucial aspect is as to whether the prosecution for criminal charge was pending against the appellant when the DPC meeting was held. In K.V. Jankiraman's case, this Court gave imprimatur to the order of the CAT holding that if the chargesheet is filed in a criminal court, sealed cover procedure can be resorted to. This was conclusion No.4 of the CAT judgment, which was upheld by this Court, and this conclusion reads as under: "(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..." (emphasis supplied) 9. Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing material available on record and also considering the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court in re: K. V. Jankiraman (supra), I am of the considered opinion that in the given circumstances the sealed cover envelope in the case of the petitioner should be opened atonce as the charge-sheet has yet not been served upon him. 10. Accordingly, the writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to open the sealed cover procedure, within three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, wherein the recommendation of the D.P.C. held in the year 2016 has been kept in the sealed cover procedure and act upon the recommendation of D.P.C. The petitioner shall also be entitled for all consequential service benefits strictly in accordance to law. 11. 11. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. 12. No order as to cost.