IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
LPA No.1036 of 2010
1. Food Corporation Of India through the Managing
Director, Headquarters, Khadya Sadan, 16-20,
Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi -110001
2. Joint Manager-cum-Executive Directror (East), Food
Corporation of India, Office of the Zonal Manager
(East), 10 A Middleton Row, Calcutta -71
3. Zonal Manager (East), Food Corporation of India, 10
A Middleton Row, Calcutta -71
4. Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India,
Exhibition Road, Patna -1
5. General Manager (Region) Food Corporation of
India, Regional Office, Patna... Respondents/Appellants
Versus
Brajesh Kumar son of Sri Jagdish Paswan, resident of
Linepar Murzapur, Nawadah, PS Nawadah, Town and
District Nawadah (Bihar) at present Manager (General),
FCI, DO, Gaya, PS & District Gaya
..... Petitioner/Respondent
-----------
06- 29/6/2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellants, and Mr.
Vijay Anand for the respondents. Respondent no.1 of CWJC
No. 8251 of 2009 (Brajesh Kumar vs. Food Corporation of
India & Ors.), has preferred this appeal under clause 10 of
the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature of Patna,
and is aggrieved by the order dated 1.12.2009, whereby the
sealed cover with respect to promotion of the respondent
herein (the writ petitioner) has been directed to be opened
subject to the punishment of censure to him.
2. A brief statement of facts essential for the
disposal of the appeal may be indicated. The respondent
herein is a Manager in the services of the Corporation.
2
Show-cause notice was issued to him with a view to award
minor penalty against him. He was ultimately awarded the
punishment of censure. It is relevant to state that the
respondent (the writ petitioner) took the stand in the writ
proceeding that the order of censure had not been served on
him and he could not, therefore, prefer departmental appeal
against the same. In the meanwhile, the question of
promotion arose, the respondent’s case was considered, and
it was kept in a sealed cover. The respondent preferred the
present writ petition for a direction that, in the
circumstances of the case, there is no justification for the
sealed cover procedure which may be set at naught and he
may be directed to be promoted to the next higher post with
effect from the date his junior has been promoted. The writ
petition has been allowed and it has been held that there is
no justification of sealed cover in the present case which
may be opened and his case for promotion may be
considered in accordance with the recommendation of the
D.P.C., as contained in the sealed cover subject to the
punishment of censure.
3. We have perused the materials on record and
considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
3
parties. It appears to us that no departmental proceeding, nor
criminal case, was pending on 8.10.2007, the date on which
the D.P.C. met and sealed-.cover procedure was followed.
In such a situation, there cannot be justification for sealed
cover procedure. The learned counsel for the respondent has
rightly relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in Union
of India v. K V Jankiraman (AIR 1991 SC 2010). In that
view of the matter, we agree with the order of the learned
Single Judge directing the Corporation to open the sealed
cover and take the case of the respondent’s promotion in
accordance with law subject of course to the punishment of
censure or such other materials on record against the
respondent. We agree with the order of the learned Single
Judge.
4. The appeal is dismissed.
( S K Katriar )
( Amaresh Kumar Lal )
mrl