Disposed¶22

Raju Sharma v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC15 Jan 2025W.P.(C)/455/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Delhi; W.P.(C) 455/2025; Raju Sharma v. Union of India and Ors; sealed cover procedure; promotion to Assistant Commandant (Ministerial); Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB); Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC); Leave Travel Concession false claims penalty Order dated 09.02.2022; CBI charge-sheet; Union of India & Ors. vs. K. V. Janakiraman and Ors., (1991) 4 SCC 109; direction to give reasons within three weeks; Navin Chawla J.; Shalinder Kaur J.; decision dated 15.01.2025.

What did the court decide?

Directions to the respondents to furnish reasons for the sealed cover procedure to the petitioner within three weeks, keeping in view K. V. Janakiraman (supra) and acting accordingly; petitioner left free to challenge the reasons so supplied in accordance with law. ¶22

Raju Sharma Vs Union of India and Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents could lawfully resort to the sealed cover procedure for the petitioner's promotion to Assistant Commandant (Ministerial) notwithstanding that no disciplinary proceedings or charge-sheet existed at the date of the DPC, and whether the impugned Office Order was sustainable without stating any reason for the sealed cover.

¶16

Court's answer

The impugned Office Order does not give any reason for resorting to a sealed cover procedure against the petitioner.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The respondents are directed to give reasons for resorting to the sealed cover procedure to the petitioner within a period of three weeks.

¶20

Key takeaways

While giving reasons, the respondents must keep in view the Judgment of the Supreme Court in K. V. Janakiraman (supra) and act accordingly.ratio¶20
If the petitioner is aggrieved of the reasons supplied to him, it shall be open to the petitioner to challenge the same in accordance with law.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Oral disposition (authored by Navin Chawla J., bench including Shalinder Kaur J.) of W.P.(C) 455/2025. The petitioner, aggrieved by an Office Order dated 26.12.2024 whereby his case for promotion to the rank of Assistant Commandant (Ministerial) was kept in a sealed cover, contended that a penalty for alleged false Leave Travel Concession claims had already been imposed vide Order dated 09.02.2022 and that no disciplinary proceedings or charge-sheet existed at the DPC date, invoking Union of India & Ors. vs. K. V. Janakiraman and Ors., (1991) 4 SCC 109. The respondents pointed to a CBI charge-sheet in a criminal case. Finding that the impugned order gave no reason for the sealed cover procedure, the Court directed the respondents to give reasons to the petitioner within three weeks, keeping the K. V. Janakiraman judgment in view and acting accordingly, and held that the petitioner may challenge the reasons supplied in accordance with law. The petition was disposed of with these directions.

¶1

$~57

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 15.01.2025

¶3

W.P.(C) 455/2025 RAJU SHARMA .....Petitioner

¶4

Through: Mr. A. K. Mishra with Mr. Arpit Mishra and Mr. Sudhanshu Dwivedi, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Appearance not given.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR

¶9

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)

¶10

This petition has been filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved of the Office Order dated 26.12.2024, issued by the respondents, informing the petitioner that his case for promotion to the rank of Assistant Commandant (Ministerial) has been kept in a sealed cover.

¶11

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the allegation that the petitioner had submitted false claims for the Leave Travel Concession, the respondent/Sashastra Seema Bal (“SSB”) has already imposed a penalty/punishment vide the Order dated 09.02.2022 on him, which Order was not challenged by the petitioner though he was aggrieved of the same.

¶12

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as on the date of the Departmental Promotion Committee (“DPC”), no disciplinary proceedings or Charge-Sheet had been filed against the petitioner, therefore, in terms of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in

¶13

Signature Not Verified

¶14

Page 1 of 2

¶15

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 455/2025 By:NEELAM Signing Da te:2 0.01.2025 15:29:15

¶16

Union of India & Ors. vs. K. V. Janakiraman and Ors. , (1991) 4 SCC 109, the respondents could not have resorted to the sealed cover procedure.

¶17

Issue notice.

¶18

Notice is accepted by the learned counsel on behalf of the respondents.

¶19

He submits that a Charge-Sheet in a criminal case has been filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation, making the petitioner accused therein. It is for this reason that the sealed cover procedure was followed against the petitioner.

¶20

Having considered the submissions made, as the Impugned Order does not give any reason for resorting to a sealed cover procedure against the petitioner, we direct the respondents to give reasons for the same to the petitioner, within a period of three weeks from today. While giving reasons, the respondents must also keep in view the Judgment of the Supreme Court in K. V. Janakiraman (supra) and act accordingly.

¶21