IBC Moratorium | Criminal Court Cannot Direct Disbursal Of Corporate Debtor's Assets To Complainant Pending CIRP: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Failure To Implead Company As Accused Renders Complaint Fatally Defective; Section 319 CrPC Cannot Be Used To Cure Such Fundamental Defect: Supreme Court 'Last Seen Theory' Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court Acquits Man In Murder Case 'Every Lawyer Has A Duty To Act Decently': Supreme Court Modifies Suspension Of Advocate For Misconduct In Court Premises Mere Declaration Of 'Transitional Area' Under Article 243-Q(1)(a) Of Constitution Does Not Automatically Convert Rural Area Into Urban Area: Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Externment Order, Terms Non-Compliance With Natural Justice A "Travesty Of Constitutional Guarantees" 'Certiorari Is Not Appellate': Supreme Court Rejects Plea In Decades-Old Co-operative Society Membership Dispute Victim Must Authorize Settlement: Supreme Court Rules Informants Cannot Quash Criminal Cases Without Real Victim's Consent State Cannot Pick And Choose: Supreme Court Restores Right To Retrospective Regularisation For Daily Wage Employees Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment of Plaint After Commencement Of Trial Cannot Be Allowed Without Proving Due Diligence: Supreme Court Discrepancy Between Ocular Testimony And Medical Evidence Creates Reasonable Doubt: Supreme Court Order VI Rule 17 & Order VIII Rule 6A CPC | Counter Claim Cannot Be Permitted After Trial Concludes When Party Fails To Pay Court Fees Initially: Supreme Court Nominee Holds Insurance Proceeds In Trust For Legal Heirs; Supreme Court Directs Equitable Distribution Pending Succession Proceedings PC Act | Court Must Impose Statutory Minimum Imprisonment Upon Conviction Under Sections 7 And 13(2): Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Corruption Case Against Official Caught In Factional Crossfire Retaliatory Counterblasts Cannot Be Used As Weapons Of Harassment: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Complaint Over Civil Land Dispute Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Court Must Defer Question Of Ad-Valorem Court Fee To Evidence When Possession Status Is Disputed: Supreme Court Minor Shortfall In Earnest Money Deposit Does Not Vitiate Auction Sale If It Causes No Prejudice: Supreme Court 'Flimsy And Untenable': Supreme Court Cancels Bail Of Accused In Gruesome 'Petrol-Burning' Murder Case Parity Is Not A Mechanical Mathematical Formula: Supreme Court Rejects Bail Plea Of Murder Accused Article 142 Constitution of India | Supreme Court May Protect Retiral Benefits Of Employees Whose Caste Certificates Are Invalidated In Exceptional Cases Omission Of CGST Rule 96(10) Applies To All Pending Proceedings: Supreme Court Mere Marking Does Not Prove Contents: Supreme Court Clarifies Evidence Law In Testamentary Proceedings Arbitral Tribunal Under Section 16 Of A&C Act Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Determine Arbitrability Of Claims Including Excepted Matters: Supreme Court Arbitration Agreement Can Be Incorporated Into A Personal Guarantee Through A Composite Transaction: Supreme Court

Himachal Pradesh High Court Rules Sealed Cover Procedure Misapplied in Promotion Case: Petitioner Entitled to Due Promotion

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Himachal Pradesh High Court, bench presided by Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J., declared that the adoption of the sealed cover procedure in the case of Naresh Kumar, who was being considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil), was unjustified. The court held that the sealed cover procedure can only be utilized after the issuance of a charge-memo or charge-sheet and not during the preliminary investigation stage.

The case (CWP No.8244 of 2022) revolved around Naresh Kumar, who had been appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil) in the H.P. Public Works Department and was being considered for promotion to the higher post. However, his promotion was put on hold due to a pending criminal case against him in the Court of learned Special Judge, Kullu, related to FIR No.2/2013. The FIR was registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act at Police Station State Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau Keylong, District Lahaul & Spiti.

The court's judgment clarified that the sealed cover procedure can only be resorted to after a charge-memo or charge-sheet is issued, not during the preliminary investigation phase. The Hon'ble Apex Court's precedent in Union of India and others v. K.V. Jankiraman and others, (1991) 4 SCC 109 was cited, concurring with the view that the adoption of the sealed cover procedure before the charge-sheet stage is not justified.

In the case at hand, no charge-sheet had been filed against Naresh Kumar, and the Investigating Officer confirmed his non-involvement through a closure report submitted to the learned Special Judge. The court deemed the application of the sealed cover procedure by the respondents as improper and ruled in favor of the petitioner.

In light of the judgment, the court directed the respondents to open the sealed cover and, if Naresh Kumar is found eligible for promotion, all consequential benefits should be granted to him from the due date. The authorities were instructed to complete this process within four weeks from the date of the judgment.

Date of Decision: 13.07.2023

Naresh Kumar vs State of H.P. and others 

Latest Legal News