chargesheet in a cri m inal prosecution is issued to the employee that it ca n be said that the departme n tal proceedings/criminal p rosecution is initiated against the employee. The sealed c over procedure is to be resorte d to only after the charge - memo/charge-sheet is issued. T he pendency of prelimin a ry investigation prior to that st a ge will not be sufficient t o enable the authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedu r e. We are in agreement with the Tribunal on this poin t . The contention advanced by the learned counsel for t h e appellant-authorities that w h en there are serious alle g ations and it takes time to col l ect necessary evidence to prepare and issue cha r gememo/charge-sheet, i t would not be in the interest o f the purity of administrati o n to reward the employee wi t h a promotion, incremen t etc. does not impress us. T he acceptance of this co n tention would result in injustic e to the employees in man y -cases. As has been the experience so far, the preliminar y investigations take an inordina t ely long time and particu l arly when they are initiated at the instance of the intere s ted persons, they are kept pen d ing deliberately. Many ti m es they never result in the issu e of any charge-memo/ch a rgesheet. If the allegations are serious and the aut h orities are keen in investiga t ing them, ordinarily it sh o uld not take much time to col l ect the relevant evidence and finalise the charges. What is further, if the charge s are that serious, the authorities have the power to s uspend the employee under the relevant rules, and t h e suspension by itself permit s a resort to the sealed cover procedure. The authorities t hus are not without a ,r e medy. It was then contended on behalf of the authorities that conclusions nos. 1 and 4 of the Full Bench of the T ribunal are inconsistent with e a ch other. Those conclusi o ns are as follows:
