Minor in Live-In Relationship Deemed 'Child in Need of Care' by High Court, Protection Ordered Under Juvenile Justice Act Cheque Signed, Sealed, and Bounced – No Escape from Liability: Delhi High Court Right to Defend Includes Right to Inspect Documents: Calcutta High Court Overrules Trial Court's Rejection of Inspection Petition Court Cannot Tinker with Finalized Consolidation Scheme Under Section 42: Punjab and Haryana High Court Remarriage During Appeal Period is Risky, But Not Void: Andhra Pradesh High Court State Cannot Sleep Over Its Rights: Supreme Court Criticizes Odisha Government for Delayed Appeals in Pension Dispute “Both Hands Intact” Rule is a Relic of the Past: Supreme Court Grants MBBS Admission to Disabled Student Terminal Benefits and Family Pension Alone Do Not Bar Compassionate Appointment, But Financial Distress Must Be Proven – Supreme Court Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC Is Not Limited to Dowry Harassment: Supreme Court Right to Speedy Trial Cannot Be Defeated by Delay Tactics: Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Fast-Tracking of Cheque Bounce Case Framing Charges Under Section 193 IPC Without Following Section 340 CrPC is Illegal: Calcutta High Court Doctrine of Part Performance Under Section 53-A TPA Not Applicable Without Proof of Possession: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Allegations of False Implication Cannot Override Strong Forensic and Documentary Evidence: Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction in Elderly Woman’s Murder and Robbery Case Applicant Not a Sexual Predator, Relationship Was Consensual: Bombay High Court Grants Bail in POCSO Case Fraudulent Transfers to Evade Creditors Cannot Escape Scrutiny: Punjab & Haryana High Court Restores Execution Petition Gujarat High Court Rules That Contractual Employees Cannot Claim Regularization of Services Serious Charges and Victim’s Suicide Justify Continued Detention: Gauhati High Court Denies Bail in POCSO Case No Permanent Establishment in India, Rejects Notional Income Taxation: Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Nokia OY Statutory Bail Under NDPS Act Can Be Denied If FSL Report Reaches Court Before Bail Plea": Calcutta High Court Termination After Acquittal is Unjust: Bombay High Court Quashes Dismissal of Shikshan Sevak, Orders 50% Back Wages Denial of MBBS Seat Due to Administrative Lapses is Unacceptable": Andhra Pradesh High Court Awards ₹7 Lakh Compensation to Wronged Student Sessions Court Cannot Reclassify Non-Bailable Offences While Granting Anticipatory Bail: Allahabad High 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 

Similar News