ORDER : 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 20.12.2024 passed by Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) by which an appeal preferred by the respondent against the impugned order dated 20.10.2014 has been allowed and a direction has been issued to the petitioner-department to reveal the fate of the respondent kept in the sealed cover for promotion to the post of RAS Super Time Scale against the vacancies of 2014-15. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prior to conducting the DPC meeting for promotion to the post of RAS Super Time Scale against the vacancies of the year 2014-15, the respondent was placed under suspension vide order dated 13.05.2011 on account of registration of criminal case against him. Learned counsel submits that prosecution sanction was granted against the petitioner to prosecute him for the offences punishable under Section 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1988”) and on the same day, the charge-sheet was submitted against him for the above offences. Learned counsel submits that after the DPC meeting was convened on 16.10.2014 and the facts with regard to the order of suspension of the respondent and about the submission of charge-sheet against him were brought into the notice of the authority concerned, therefore the fate of respondent’s promotion was kept in a sealed cover. Learned counsel submits that accordingly the fate of other incumbents was declared on 20.10.2014 except the respondent. Learned counsel submits that subsequently suspension of the respondent was revoked on 19.08.2015 but his fate for promotion which has been kept in a sealed cover was not revealed. Hence, under these circumstances, he approached the Tribunal by way of filing an appeal for opening the sealed cover. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in order to deal with such similar situations, a circular dated 04.06.2008 has been issued by the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan wherein Clause 12 of the aforesaid circular deals with the complete procedure with regard to the effect on promotion of an employee when disciplinary proceedings/criminal case are pending against the delinquent employee. Learned counsel submits that as per Clause 12.1 of the aforesaid circular, three things are required to be brought into the notice of the authority at the time of DPC meeting; (I) the suspension of a government employee; (II) initiation of departmental proceedings against him in pursuance of departmental charge-sheet; and (III) submission of charge-sheet against such employees in a criminal case or pendency of criminal cases against him before the competent court of law. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that till date the proceedings initiated against the respondent in the criminal case are pending and he is not acquitted in the same and his suspension order has simply been revoked vide order dated 19.08.2015, but this cannot be a ground for opening the sealed cover in which the fate of the respondent has been kept. Learned counsel submits that going contrary to the provisions contained under the aforesaid circular dated 04.06.2008, the Tribunal has passed an erroneous order directing the petitioner to open the sealed cover in which the fate of the respondent has been kept. Learned counsel submits that in view of the submissions made hereinabove the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be quashed and set-aside. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer and submitted that the case of the respondent is falling within the Clause 12.7 of the circular dated 04.06.2008 issued by the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, which clearly says that the fate of an employee, which has been kept in a sealed cover, would be declared in the following eventualities; that only if he is acquitted in the disciplinary proceedings/criminal case pending against him or reinstated from suspension i.e. his suspension has been revoked. Learned counsel submits that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner but the suspension has been revoked by the authority concerned, hence under these circumstances, as per Clause 12.7, the Tribunal has passed a cogent and reasoned order, which requires no interference of this Court. 6. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon the order passed by this Court in the case of Sandeep Kumar Berar Versus State of Rajasthan while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18074/2018 7. 6. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon the order passed by this Court in the case of Sandeep Kumar Berar Versus State of Rajasthan while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18074/2018 7. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 8. Perusal of the record indicates that a criminal case under Section 7/13 of the Act of 1988 was registered against the respondent in the year 2011 and on the basis thereof, he was placed under suspension on 13.05.2011 and, thereafter, prosecution sanction was issued by the Government to prosecute him for the above offences vide order dated 11.09.2011 and on the very same day, the charge-sheet has been submitted against him for the above offences and three years thereafter the DPC meeting was conducted by the authorities concerned, for promotion to the post of RAS super time scale. It is worthy to note here that the facts with regard to submission of charge-sheet against the respondent in a criminal case pertaining to offence under Section 7/13 of the Act of 1988 were brought into the notice of the concerned authority and also the order of suspension of the respondent dated 13.05.2011 and on the basis thereof, the fate of the respondent was kept in a sealed cover. 9. Subsequently, the suspension order of the respondent was revoked by the authority concerned on 19.08.2015. 10. Now the question remains for consideration of this Court is that whether after revoking of suspension of the respondent, the sealed cover in which the fate of the respondent has been kept is to be opened or not? 11. For ready reference, the relevant provision dealing with the issue in question have been mentioned under Clause 12 of the circular dated 04.06.2008 issued by the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, which reads as under:- 12. A bare perusal of Clause 12.7 of the circular dated 04.06.2008 indicates that the sealed cover in which the fate of delinquent employee has been kept can be opened in the following circumstances; that only if he is acquitted in the disciplinary proceedings/criminal case pending against him or reinstated from suspension i.e. his suspension has been revoked. 13. A bare perusal of Clause 12.7 of the circular dated 04.06.2008 indicates that the sealed cover in which the fate of delinquent employee has been kept can be opened in the following circumstances; that only if he is acquitted in the disciplinary proceedings/criminal case pending against him or reinstated from suspension i.e. his suspension has been revoked. 13. In the instant case, no disciplinary proceedings are pending against the respondent but a criminal case is pending against him before the competent court of law and this fact is not in dispute that his suspension order has already been revoked on 19.08.2015, hence the case of the respondent falls under Clause 12.7 of the circular, which clearly stipulates that fate of the respondent which has been kept in a sealed cover can be opened, in case, suspension of a delinquent employee is revoked. 14. Taking note of the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has passed a reasoned and cogent order, which requires no interference of this Court, hence, accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 15. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) stand dismissed. 16. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that in case the promotion is granted to the respondent that would remain subject to outcome of the criminal proceedings pending against him before the competent court of law.