Sealed Cover Procedure Impermissible Absent Charge Memo or Criminal Chargesheet: Delhi High Court reaffirms Jankiraman in UOI v. Sameer Dnyandev Wankhede

Court: Delhi High Court

Bench: Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain

Date: 28 August 2025

Citation: 2025 DHC 7400-DB

Case: Union of India and Ors v. Sameer Dnyandev Wankhede, W.P.(C) 10271/2025

Introduction

This decision reiterates and sharpens the settled law on the “sealed cover” procedure in service jurisprudence. The Union of India challenged a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) order directing that the sealed cover pertaining to the respondent’s promotion be opened and, if found suitable, that he be granted promotion with effect from 01.01.2021, along with appropriate placement in the seniority list of Joint Commissioners. The High Court dismissed the Union’s writ petition, emphatically reaffirming that the sealed cover procedure can be invoked only in three narrowly defined circumstances, namely: where the employee is (i) under suspension, or (ii) a charge memo in disciplinary proceedings has been issued and is pending, or (iii) a criminal chargesheet has been filed in court. Mere pendency of an FIR, an ECIR, or preliminary vigilance steps—however serious the allegations—does not suffice.

The respondent, a Group ‘A’ officer who had faced multiple complaints and investigations (including a CBI FIR dated 11.05.2023 and an ED ECIR No. 36/2023), argued that none of the trigger conditions under the Government of India’s Office Memorandum (OM) dated 14.09.1992 (as adopted/clarified in OM dated 25.10.2004) was met on the relevant dates, and therefore the sealed cover procedure was unlawful. The Tribunal agreed. The Delhi High Court has now affirmed that view.

Summary of the Judgment

• The Court held that, as on the relevant dates, no departmental proceedings with an issued charge memo were pending against the respondent; he was not under suspension; and no criminal chargesheet had been filed. Therefore, none of the three recognized triggers for sealed cover were met.
• Mere registration of a CBI FIR and an ED ECIR, the existence of “draft charge-sheets,” complaints about caste certificate, or other preliminary vigilance actions—without service of a charge memo or filing of a criminal chargesheet—cannot justify adopting the sealed cover procedure.
• The Court rejected the Union’s reliance on specific portions of K.V. Jankiraman, as well as on Union Of India v. Kewal Kumar and State of M.P. v. Syed Naseem Zahir, distinguishing each on facts.
• The writ petition was dismissed. The directions issued by CAT were affirmed, including opening the sealed cover and, if found fit by UPSC, granting promotion to Additional Commissioner w.e.f. 01.01.2021 and appropriate placement in the seniority list of Joint Commissioners of 28.03.2024. Compliance was directed within four weeks.

Factual Background

A Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) convened on 18.03.2024 to consider eligible ad hoc officers for regular promotion to the post of Joint Commissioner. The respondent’s case was placed in a sealed cover. The respondent challenged this before CAT (O.A. No. 2835/2024), asserting that none of the limited conditions allowing sealed cover were present. CAT allowed the application and directed:

• Opening the sealed cover for the respondent’s promotion; if recommended by the UPSC, promotion to Additional Commissioner w.e.f. 01.01.2021.
• Placement of his name at the appropriate position in the Joint Commissioners’ final seniority list dated 28.03.2024.

The Union brought a writ petition challenging CAT’s order, relying on the seriousness of allegations: a CBI FIR (11.05.2023), an ED ECIR (No. 36/2023), prior draft charge-sheets (27.09.2022 and 27.12.2022), a complaint alleging a forged caste certificate, and other departmental complaints.

The respondent countered that, per OMs dated 14.09.1992 and 25.10.2004 (implementing K.V. Jankiraman), sealed cover is permissible only if the employee is under suspension; or a charge memo in disciplinary proceedings has been served and is pending; or a criminal chargesheet has been filed. None of these applied. They highlighted the Union’s own admission before CAT that, in light of a Delhi High Court order dated 12.03.2024 in W.P.(C) 3404/2024 and a CAT order dated 22.03.2024, issuance of charge memos was kept in abeyance and CVC noted that position on 07.08.2024. Moreover, by a Bombay High Court order dated 08.07.2025 in a criminal writ petition, CBI sought further time for investigation—underscoring that no chargesheet had yet been filed.

Issues Before the Court

1. Whether the sealed cover procedure could lawfully be invoked in the respondent’s case in the absence of any of the three conditions recognized by K.V. Jankiraman and the Government’s OMs.
2. Whether seriousness of allegations, pendency of a CBI FIR or ED ECIR, or draft charge-sheets and preliminary vigilance steps could justify sealed cover.
3. Whether precedents such as Kewal Kumar and Syed Naseem Zahir support the Union’s stance on sealed cover in the present factual matrix.

The Court’s Holding

The Court held that the sealed cover procedure was impermissible on these facts. There was no suspension, no served departmental charge memo pending, and no criminal chargesheet filed in court. Serious allegations do not alter this rule. Precedents cited by the Union were distinguishable. Consequently, the High Court upheld the CAT’s directions to open the sealed cover, and if found fit, grant promotion w.e.f. 01.01.2021 with appropriate seniority, and directed compliance within four weeks.

Detailed Analysis

Precedents and Instruments Cited, and How They Were Applied

1) K.V. Jankiraman (1991) 4 SCC 109

This is the foundational authority on sealed cover. The Supreme Court held that sealed cover may be resorted to only after: (a) a charge memo in disciplinary proceedings has been issued; or (b) a criminal chargesheet has been filed in court; or (c) the employee is under suspension. Pendency of preliminary investigations (however prolonged) is insufficient. The decision explicitly rejected the argument that “serious allegations” and time needed for investigation can, by themselves, justify withholding promotions via sealed cover. Authorities, if genuinely concerned, have the power to suspend; otherwise they must adhere to the strict triggers.

The Delhi High Court quoted Jankiraman at length, emphasizing that accepting the “serious allegations” argument would perpetrate injustice, a phenomenon familiar from inordinately prolonged preliminary inquiries. The Court also reconciled apparent tensions within Jankiraman’s conclusions by clarifying that “pendency” must mean pendency at the stage where a charge memo/chargesheet has already been issued.

The Union sought to rely on a specific portion of Jankiraman (Civil Appeal Nos. 51–55/1990), where the Supreme Court declined benefits to employees who had admitted guilt, were suspended, and had departmental proceedings and formal charge-sheets issued (even if criminal prosecution was dropped on a lenient view). The Delhi High Court held that those were “peculiar facts” involving admission of guilt and issued charge-sheets—crucially absent here.

2) Union Of India v. Kewal Kumar (1993) 3 SCC 204

In Kewal Kumar, an FIR was registered and a decision to initiate departmental proceedings had been taken prior to the DPC meeting, with a charge-sheet issued almost immediately thereafter. On those facts, the Supreme Court declined to direct opening of the sealed cover. The Delhi High Court distinguished Kewal Kumar because, in Wankhede’s case, no such departmental charge memo was ever served, nor was any criminal chargesheet filed—even long after the DPC date. Thus, the decisive factual predicates from Kewal Kumar were missing.

3) State of M.P. v. Syed Naseem Zahir, 1993 Supp (2) SCC 225

The Supreme Court there found that DPC resort to sealed cover was unjustified but, because the departmental inquiry had since concluded with charges proved and a decision was imminent “in a matter of days,” it was considered inappropriate to direct opening the sealed cover before the outcome. The Delhi High Court found Zahir inapplicable: in the present case, departmental proceedings had not even commenced, let alone concluded.

4) Government of India OMs dated 14.09.1992 and 25.10.2004

These OMs operationalize Jankiraman within the Central Government. They restrict sealed cover to three scenarios:

• The employee is under suspension;
• A departmental charge memo has been issued and the inquiry is pending; or
• A criminal chargesheet has been filed in court.

The Court held that none of these applied on the relevant dates. The Union’s own pleadings showed charge memos were expressly kept in abeyance in light of a Delhi High Court order dated 12.03.2024 (W.P.(C) 3404/2024) and a CAT order dated 22.03.2024, which prohibited reliance on evidence recorded by a Special Enquiry Team (SET) in any future departmental proceedings “as per law.”

5) Delhi High Court decisions cited by the respondent

The respondent relied on A.V. Prem Nath v. Union of India (2023 SCC OnLine Del 3215), Sanjay Yadav v. Union of India (2025 SCC OnLine Del 2553), and Neeraj Kumar Pandey v. Union of India (2025 SCC OnLine Del 604), which consistently apply Jankiraman to confine sealed cover to the three recognized triggers. The present judgment aligns with that line of authority.

6) Bombay High Court order dated 08.07.2025

Notably, the Bombay High Court recorded that CBI needed further time to complete the investigation in the FIR relating to the respondent. That reinforced that the matter was still at the investigation stage, with no chargesheet filed—again failing to meet the threshold for sealed cover.

Legal Reasoning: Why the Sealed Cover Was Unlawful on These Facts

1. No trigger condition existed. The respondent was neither suspended, nor served with a departmental charge memo, nor facing a criminal chargesheet in court—the only conditions under the OM (and Jankiraman) that authorize sealed cover.
2. Seriousness of allegations is irrelevant absent the triggers. The Court quoted Jankiraman to reject reliance on the gravity of allegations or time needed for investigation. If allegations are truly serious, the authority may suspend; absent that, sealed cover cannot be used as a stopgap.
3. Draft charge-sheets and preliminary steps do not suffice. Draft charges that were never served; CVC’s first-stage advice; complaints about caste certificate; departmental advisories; or ED’s ECIR are preliminary or collateral actions, not the legally recognized triggers.
4. Department’s own stance defeats its case. The Union admitted it kept issuance of charge memos in abeyance in light of court orders and informed CVC accordingly. Having chosen not to initiate proceedings, it could not simultaneously deprive the respondent of promotion via sealed cover.
5. Precedents distinguished on facts. Cases cited by the Union involved suspensions, admissions of guilt, served charge memos, or imminent conclusions of inquiries—none of which existed here.
6. Judicial restraint on reasons for non-initiation. The Court stated it would not examine why investigations or departmental proceedings were not concluded; the legal test is whether the triggers exist, not whether they ought to have existed.

Impact and Implications

• Reinforces the narrow gate for sealed cover: Departments and DPCs must hew strictly to the OM triggers. FIRs, ECIRs, vigilance complaints, “draft” charge-sheets, or ongoing preliminary inquiries do not justify sealed cover.
• Institutional discipline and timelines: The judgment pressures investigative and disciplinary authorities to either (i) issue charge memos or file chargesheets promptly, or (ii) refrain from derailing promotions. Indefinite preliminary stages cannot be weaponized to stall career progression.
• Consistent national jurisprudence: This decision harmonizes with the Supreme Court’s rulings and recent Delhi High Court decisions, limiting sealed cover’s use and preventing abuse by prolonged “investigations.”
• Consequential seniority and retroactivity: By affirming promotion w.e.f. 01.01.2021 (subject to UPSC recommendation) and directing correct placement in the Joint Commissioner seniority list, the Court underscores that improper sealed cover results in retrospective restoration of career progression and seniority parity.
• Practical guidance to DPCs and vigilance units: Before resorting to sealed cover, agencies should check a short, mandatory list:
  • Is the officer under suspension?
  • Has a charge memo in a disciplinary proceeding been served and is it pending?
  • Has a criminal chargesheet been filed in court?
  If the answer to all three is “no,” sealed cover is impermissible.
• CBI/ED cases and ECIRs: The ruling clarifies that even in financial crime or anti-corruption contexts, an ECIR or FIR—without a chargesheet—does not trigger sealed cover.
• Respect for prior judicial orders: Where courts have constrained evidentiary use (e.g., SET evidence) or led departments to keep charge memos in abeyance, authorities must not use sealed cover to achieve indirectly what they cannot do directly.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Sealed Cover Procedure: During a DPC, if an officer faces certain serious, formal proceedings, the DPC assesses the officer but keeps the recommendation sealed until the proceedings conclude. The seal is opened only after resolution, to determine if promotion is to be granted retrospectively. It is an exception, not a norm.
• Trigger Conditions (from Jankiraman/OM of 14.09.1992):
  • Under suspension; or
  • Departmental charge memo has been issued and inquiry is pending; or
  • Criminal chargesheet has been filed in a court of law.
  Without one of these, sealed cover cannot be used.
• Charge Memo vs. Draft Charge-sheet: A “charge memo” is a formal, served document initiating disciplinary proceedings. A “draft” charge-sheet that is never served does not count.
• FIR vs. Criminal Chargesheet: An FIR begins police investigation. A “chargesheet” is a formal filing in court alleging specific offences. Sealed cover is tied to the latter, not the former.
• ECIR (Enforcement Case Information Report): An internal document used by the ED to commence investigations under PMLA. It is not equivalent to a criminal chargesheet filed in court.
• CVC Advice: The Central Vigilance Commission may give “first stage advice” recommending initiation of disciplinary proceedings. Advice alone is insufficient to trigger sealed cover unless a formal charge memo follows.
• Suspension: If an officer is suspended pending inquiry, sealed cover can apply. In this case, the respondent was not suspended.
• Retrospective Promotion and Seniority: When sealed cover is wrongly applied, courts may direct opening it and grant promotion from an earlier due date, aligning seniority and sometimes consequential benefits, to nullify prejudice from an unlawful sealed cover.
• Keeping in Abeyance: Temporarily pausing a contemplated action (e.g., issuance of charge memo) often due to legal constraints. If the department itself puts charges in abeyance, it cannot simultaneously justify sealed cover on the basis of those non-existent pending charges.
• DPC and UPSC: The Departmental Promotion Committee assesses suitability. For certain higher posts, the UPSC participates or accords approval. The CAT’s direction was conditional on UPSC recommendation—reflecting procedural propriety.

What This Judgment Does Not Decide

• The merits of the allegations against the respondent remain untouched. The Court expressly refrained from judging why investigations or departmental proceedings had not culminated in charges; it confined itself to whether the legal conditions for sealed cover existed.
• The quantum of monetary or other consequential benefits is not elaborated upon in this judgment beyond the direction to grant promotion w.e.f. 01.01.2021 and to fix seniority appropriately; implementation details are left to the authorities consistent with service rules.

Conclusion: Key Takeaways

• Sealed cover is a tightly cabined exception. It can be invoked only if the officer is under suspension, has been served a charge memo in a pending disciplinary proceeding, or faces a criminal chargesheet filed in court.
• Investigations at a preliminary stage—FIRs, ECIRs, CVC first-stage advice, unserved draft charge-sheets, and internal complaints—do not authorize sealed cover.
• The gravity of allegations, without the formal triggers, cannot justify depriving an employee of timely promotion. If the situation genuinely warrants it, the authority must either suspend or issue a charge memo or file a chargesheet; otherwise, promotion consideration cannot be stalled.
• Where sealed cover is wrongly applied, courts will restore the employee’s position—here, by directing opening of the sealed cover and, subject to UPSC recommendation, promotion with retrospective effect and proper seniority.
• The judgment provides clear guidance for future DPCs and vigilance authorities and reinforces a uniform, rule-based approach across services, preventing indefinite career prejudice due to unending “preliminary” inquiries.

In sum, Union of India v. Sameer Dnyandev Wankhede is a robust reaffirmation of the Jankiraman doctrine: sealed cover cannot be a placeholder for indecision or investigative delay. Authorities must either cross the formal legal thresholds or allow promotions to proceed. The decision fortifies fairness, timeliness, and legal certainty in service promotions, especially where high-stakes allegations risk overshadowing procedural safeguards.