V.G. Arun, J.:— The original petition is filed by the State of Kerala and its officers, aggrieved by Exhibits P5 and P9 orders of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, in O.A.(EKM) No. 350 of 2018 filed by the respondent herein. The original application was filed, aggrieved by curtailment of the applicant's right to be included in the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant Director in the Local Self Government Department. An encapsulation of the facts in the writ petition is as follows;

2. The applicant, while working as Secretary of Kakkodi Grama Panchayat, was included in Annexure A1 seniority list of Special Grade Secretaries. Under Annexure A2 notification dated 22.12.2017, promotions were effected from Annexure A1, superseding the applicant, by reason of a vigilance case pending against him. The vigilance case (FIR No. 3/2014 of VACB, Kozhikode) was registered on 17.2.2014 against the applicant and six others for offences under Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 466, 468, 471, 477A and 120B of IPC. The allegation was that the applicant, while working as the Secretary of Olavanna Grama Panchayat, entered into a conspiracy with certain other officials of the Panchayat and some builders and granted building permits for high rise buildings illegally, by forging documents and falsifying accounts.

3. According to the applicant, mere registration of an FIR by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau cannot entail non-inclusion in the select list for promotion. The original application was therefore filed seeking a declaration that pendency of vigilance enquiry is not a bar for inclusion of the applicant in the select list for promotion and to direct respondents 1 to 3 to promote the applicant to the post of Assistant Director of Panchayats, with effect from the date of promotion of his juniors.

4. A reply statement was filed by the respondents stating that the case against the applicant is under investigation, during the course of which it was revealed that while working as Secretary, Olavanna Grama Panchayat, the applicant had illegally granted four building permits for the construction of high rise buildings. It was also revealed that the applicant had forged various documents, including the building licence register, and had granted building permits even before remittance of permit fee by the builder.

5. On 4.4.2018 the Tribunal issued Exhibit P3 order, directing that the eligibility of the applicant should be assessed, as stipulated under Note 1 to Rule 28(b)(i)(7) of Part II KS & SSR, even if the applicant was not eligible to be included in the select list. Accordingly, direction was issued to include the applicant in the zone of consideration and to assess his eligibility and record the findings of the DPC. It was also directed that if the DPC finds the applicant to be eligible for inclusion in the select list, consequential orders should be issued by the Government.

6. Based on Exhibit P3 order, the DPC considered the applicant's eligibility and decided not to revise the select list for promotion by including the applicant's name since the vigilance case against him was pending. On the proceedings of the DPC being brought to the Tribunal's notice, Exhibit P5 order dated 5.2.2019 was issued, observing that the action of the DPC was not in terms of the directions in Exhibit P3 order. The Tribunal therefore issued a further order, Exhibit P5 dated 5.2.2019, directing to place the applicant in the zone of consideration of the DPC and to consider the suitability of the applicant in accordance with Rule 28(b)(i)(7) of Part II of KS & SSR and in terms of the dictum laid down by the High Court in Sasidharan K.K. v. State of Kerala [2008 (4) KLT 149] and by the Honourable Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.V. Janakiraman [(1991) 4 SCC 109].

7. Thereupon, the DPC considered the applicant's eligibility again and noticing that the vigilance case was pending, once again declined to revise the select list for promotion to the cadre of Assistant Director of Panchayats by including the applicant's name. Aggrieved, the applicant filed contempt petition (C.P(EKM). No. 68/2019) before the Tribunal alleging that the respondents had deliberately violated the order of the Tribunal by refusing to assess his eligibility and include his name in the select list for promotion. By Exhibit P7 order dated 7.6.2019 the Tribunal directed an affidavit to be filed stating as to why its directions are not being complied with. Accordingly, the Convenor of the Departmental Promotion Committee filed Exhibit P8 affidavit. In the Tribunal's view the affidavit was not satisfactory and the action by the respondent was contumacious. Hence, Exhibit P9 order was issued observing that unless appropriate remedial action is taken, proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act will be initiated.

8. The original petition was thereupon filed, challenging Exhibits P5 and P9 orders on the ground that the decisions in Sasidharan's and Janakiraman's cases (supra) will not apply to the instant case. That, the impact of Janakiraman's case (supra) vis-a-vis Note (i) to Rule 28(b)(i)(7) of Part II KS & SSR was already considered by this Court in OP(KAT). No. 349 of 2014 and OP(KAT). No. 375 of 2018.

9. In order to resolve the issue arising for consideration, we have to look at Note (i) of Rule 28(b)(i)(7) of KS & SSR and also the decisions of this Court and the Apex Court in Sasidharan's and Janakiraman's cases respectively. Note (i) to Rule 28(b)(i)(7) of KS & SSR reads as follows:

“Note.-(i) Officers under suspension and Officers against whom criminal proceedings are pending in a Sessions Court or in any other higher Court for grave offences like murder, dacoity, etc., and Officers against whom departmental proceedings are taken for the imposition of a major penalty under the disciplinary rules applicable to them should not be included in the select list. But the suitability of such an Officer for promotion should be assessed at the relevant time by the Departmental Promotion Committee and a finding reached whether, if the Officer had not been suspended or the criminal proceedings/departmental proceedings had not been pending against him, he would have been recommended/selected for promotion. Where a select list is prepared the Departmental Promotion Committee shall also make a finding as to what the position of the Officer in that list would have been but for the suspension or the criminal proceedings/departmental proceedings against him. The findings as to the suitability and the place in the select list of the Officer should be recorded separately and attached to the proceedings. The proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee need only contain a note. “The findings are recorded in the attached sheet of paper”. The authority competent to fill the vacancy should be separately advised to fill the vacancy only on a temporary basis. Officers against whom vigilance or departmental proceedings are taken after the charges have prima facie been established in a preliminary enquiry should not be included in the Select List. But, the cases of such Officers should also be assessed. The question of including them in the select list shall be considered when the result of the enquiry is known. However, officers against whom departmental proceedings are taken for the imposition of a minor penalty may be included in the select list provisionally if they are found suitable but for the pendency of disciplinary proceedings initiated against them.”

(underline provided)

10. Going by the former part of the Note, officers against whom criminal proceedings are pending in a Sessions Court or in any other higher court for grave offences should not be included in the select list. This applies equally to departmental proceedings also, the initiation of which can only be by issuing a charge sheet. The later part stipulates that the officers against whom departmental or vigilance proceedings are taken after the charges have prima facie been established in a preliminary enquiry should not also be included in the select list. There is marked difference in the terminology used with respect to the two situations of exclusion based on pending criminal proceedings. The former being with respect to proceedings for grave offences pending in Sessions or any other higher court and the latter, of vigilance proceedings after the charges have prima facie been established in a preliminary enquiry. As far as cases before the Sessions Court are concerned, the procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure is committal for trial by the Magistrate's Court, on finding the offences included in the final report filed before it to be exclusively triable by a Court of Session. Whereas in vigilance cases, the procedure is as prescribed in Chapter IV of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

11. Sections 17 and 17A of Chapter IV of the Prevention of Corruption are extracted here under:

“17. Persons authorised to investigate.— Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no police officer below the rank, — (a) in the case of the Delhi Special Police Establishment, of an Inspector of Police; (b) in the metropolitan areas of Bombay, Calcutta, Madras and Ahmedabad and in any other metropolitan area notified as such under sub-section (1) of section 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), of an Assistant Commissioner of Police; (c) elsewhere, of a Deputy Superintendent of Police or a police officer of equivalent rank, shall investigate any offence punishable under this Act without the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class, as the case may be, or make any arrest therefor without a warrant:

PROVIDED that if a police officer not below the rank of an Inspector of Police is authorised by the State Government in this behalf by general or special order, he may also investigate any such offence without the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class, as the case may be, or make arrest therefore without a warrant:

PROVIDED further that an offence referred to in clause

(b) of sub-section (1) of section 13 shall not be investigated without the order of a police officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police.

17A. Enquiry or Inquiry or investigation of offences relatable to recommendations made or decision taken by public servant in discharge of official functions or duties.—(1) No police officer shall conduct any enquiry or inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under this Act, where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties, without the previous approval—

(a) in the case of a person who is or was employed, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of that Government;

(b) in the case of a person who is or was employed, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of that Government;

(c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed:

Provided that no such approval shall be necessary for cases involving arrest of a person on the spot on the charge of accepting or attempting to accept any undue advantage for himself or for any other person:

Provided further that the concerned authority shall convey its decision under this section within a period of three months, which may, for reasons to be recorded in writing by such authority, be extended by a further period of one month.]”

12. Thus, Section 17A mandates an approval from the appointing authority who would necessarily look into the allegations levelled and the preliminary enquiry report before registration of the FIR and either drop the proceedings or if satisfied direct the registration of the case before the Vigilance Court or for placing the matter before the Vigilance Tribunal. In this context, it may be appropriate to consider the following relevant provisions in the Kerala Vigilance Manual also:

32. Scope

(i) A Vigilance Enquiry conducted by the Bureau will lead to any of the following results:

(1) Registration of a Vigilance Case by the Bureau.

(2) An Enquiry by the Vigilance Tribunal.

(3) Departmental action against the Suspect officer.

(4) Registration of a case by the local police/CBCID.

(5) Recommendation to Government for rectifying any system failure/defects found in the working of the Department concerned.

(6) No further action as the allegations could be found unsubstantiated in evidence.

(ii) Government have empowered the Bureau to conduct only one type of formal enquiry i.e. Vigilance Enquiry. The Director, therefore, initiates only Vigilance Enquiries on all matters referred to him by Government for enquiry.

xx xx xx

Form and Content of Enquiry Report

44. Director's Circular Nos. 44/65, 19/66, 55/66, 19/70, 21/71, 8/72, 11/79 etc contain exhaustive instructions regarding the details to be incorporated in the different paragraphs of the proforma fixed for preparing the Vigilance Enquiry Reports. The enquiry officers will go through the above mentioned Circulars as well as other relevant Circulars so as to improve the content and quality of the Vigilance Enquiry Reports prepared by them.

Time-limit for Enquiry Reports

45. A time limit of three months is fixed by the Government for completing a Vigilance Enquiry. If the Enquiry is not completed within this period the Director shall forward a Special Report to Government in the Vigilance Dept. showing the result of the enquiry made so far and indicating the probable time required for completing the enquiry.

Forwarding of Enquiry Reports

46. After completing the enquiry, in which the signed statements of witnesses shall be recorded, the Deputy Supdt of Police of the Units concerned shall forward a detailed report showing the allegations, the evidence collected and the result of the enquiry on each item to the Supdt of Police concerned who will scrutinise it and forward the same with his report to the Director, through the DIG/IGP concerned for transmission to Government.

Revision of Reports

47. When the Units forward a Vigilance Enquiry Report (either originally or after revision) to the Range Supdts of Police, the Dy Sp of the Unit should intimate that fact, with date, direct to the Directorate immediately. If the Range Supdt of Police returns the Vigilance Enquiry report to the concerned Unit for revision etc or when he forwards it to the LA/ALA concerned for opinion, he should send an intimation to the Directorate.

Action by the Directorate

48. All enquiry reports received in the Directorate after examination and approval by the Director shall be forwarded by him to the Government in the Vigilance Dept. Where the recommendation in the report is for an enquiry by the Vigilance Tribunal, the opinion of the Legal Adviser/ALA will also be attached. A draft Memo of Charges with a Statement of Allegations will also be attached to the Enquiry Report and the connected records forwarded to the Government. On receipt of the Vigilance Enquiry reports, the Government will decide what further action should be taken in the matter. The matter shall be referred by the Government to the Vigilance Tribunal or for Departmental action according to merits.

Subsidiary recommendations

49. Whenever subsidiary recommendations are made for recovery of tax amounts, stamp duty etc or administrative steps to be taken by other Departments, a separate, brief, and self-contained report dealing with the particular subject matter shall be enclosed with the Enquiry Report for transmission to the concerned Department for appropriate action. That a self-contained report is enclosed shall be mentioned in the covering letter.

Draft complaint

50. The concerned Vigilance Units will prepare a ‘draft complaint’ and enclose it with the Enquiry Report forwarded to the Director, when it is felt that a registration of a case by local police is desirable. This draft complaint will also be forwarded to the Government from the Directorate when registration of case by the local police is recommended.”

13. The elaborate procedure prescribed in the Manual ensures that vigilance cases are registered by the Bureau only on a prima facie case being established. On a conjoint reading of Section 17A of the P.C. Act and the provisions of the Vigilance Manual it can unhesitatingly be held that the prima facie establishment of charges, in the context of vigilance proceedings, is in a preliminary enquiry as stated in Note (i) to Rule 28(b)(i)(7) of Part II KS & SSR. The taking of vigilance proceedings contemplated in the Note would be the registration of FIR, which follows the preliminary enquiry by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau.

14. The decision in Janakiraman's case (supra) was rendered by the Apex Court while considering a batch of cases involving common questions, of which the first question, and the contextually relevant question was the date from which the disciplinary/criminal proceedings could be taken to be pending against an employee. This question was answered on an interpretation of O.M. No. 22011/1/79Estt.(A) dated 30.1.1982 issued by the Government of India (Department of Personnel and Training). The relevant portion of that Office Memorandum as quoted in the judgment and its consideration read as under:

“10. ……

‘3.(i)(a) It may be ascertained whether there is any departmental disciplinary proceedings or any case in a court of law pending against the individual under consideration, or

(b) there is a prima-facie case on the basis of which a decision has been taken to proceed against the official either departmentally or in a court of law.

(ii) The facts may be brought to the notice of the Departmental Promotion Committee who may then assess the suitability of the official(s) for promotion to the next grade/post and for the purpose of this assessment, the D.P.C. shall not take into consideration the fact of the pending case(s) against the official. In case an official is found ‘unfit for promotion’ on the basis of his record, without taking into consideration, the case(s) pending against him, the findings of the D.P.C. shall be recorded in the proceedings. In respect of any other kind of assessment, the grading awarded by the D.P.C. may be kept in a sealed cover.’

xx xx xx

“16. On the first question, viz., as to when for the purposes of the sealed cover procedure the disciplinary/criminal proceedings can be said to have commenced, the Full Bench of the Tribunal has held that it is only when a charge-memo in a disciplinary proceedings or a charge-sheet in a criminal prosecution is issued to the employee that it can be said that the departmental proceedings/criminal prosecution is initiated against the employee. The sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after the charge-memo/charge-sheet is issued. The pendency of preliminary investigation prior to that stage will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure. We are in agreement with the Tribunal on this point. The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-authorities that when there are serious allegations and it takes time to collect necessary evidence to prepare and issue charge-memo/charge-sheet, it would not be in the interest of the purity of administration to reward the employee with a promotion, increment etc. does not impress us. The acceptance of this contention would result in injustice to the employees in many cases. As has been the experience so far, the preliminary investigations take an inordinately long time and particularly when they are initiated at the instance of the interested persons, they are kept pending deliberately. Many times they never result in the issue of any charge-memo/charge-sheet. If the allegations are serious and the authorities are keen in investigating them, ordinarily it should not take much time to collect the relevant evidence and finalise the charges. What is further, if the charges are that serious, the authorities have the power to suspend the employee under the relevant rules, and the suspension by itself permits a resort to the sealed cover procedure. The authorities thus are not without a remedy. It was then contended on behalf of the authorities that conclusions Nos. 1 and 4 of the Full Bench of the Tribunal are inconsistent with each other. Those conclusions are as follows: (ATC p. 196, para 39)

“(1) consideration for promotion, selection grade, crossing the efficiency bar or higher scale of pay cannot be withheld merely on the ground of pendency of a disciplinary or criminal proceedings against an official;

(2) * * *

(3) * * *

(4) the sealed cover procedure can be resorted to only after a charge memo is served on the concerned official or the charge-sheet filed before the criminal court and not before;”

17. There is no doubt that there is a seeming contradiction between the two conclusions. But read harmoniously, and that is what the Full Bench has intended, the two conclusions can be reconciled with each other. The conclusion No. 1 should be read to mean that the promotion etc. cannot be withheld merely because some disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending against the employee. To deny the said benefit, they must be at the relevant time pending at the stage when charge-memo/charge-sheet has already been issued to the employee. Thus read, there is no inconsistency in the two conclusions”

15. In Sasidharan's case (supra) the question considered by a learned Single Judge of this court was as to when can the vigilance proceedings be stated to be pending against an employee in the context of Note-(i) to Rule 28(b)(i)(7) of KS & SSR. The learned Judge relied on the decision in Janakiraman's case (supra) and dealt with the question in the following manner:

“16…But the controversy really centers around the question as to when vigilance proceedings can be stated to be pending against the employee, in the context of Note (i) to R.28(b)(7) of the said Rules. Mr. Nandakumar submits that though issuance of a charge sheet to the employee as an accused might be required as a sine qua non, in the matter of criminal proceedings in general, a different yardstick will have to be adopted in the case of vigilance proceedings, especially in the light of the specific wording contained in the note. He lays emphasis on the note which states that officers against whom vigilance or departmental proceedings were taken after the charges are prima facie established in a preliminary enquiry should not be included in the select list. He submits that in all cases a vigilance enquiry is instituted against a Government servant only after a preliminary enquiry. If that be so, the normal procedure adopted in the matter of registration of a crime against a person and the further steps which are progressively taken in such cases viz. the court taking cognizance of the same or court directing investigation under S.156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and then accepting a final report filed by the investigating agency under S.173(8) of the Cr.P.C. would not ipso facto apply in the matter of a vigilance case. He submits that in such cases, the enquiry is originally conducted by the vigilance department and ultimately the Government takes a decision to sanction the prosecution of the officer concerned, before the Vigilance Court for offences under the PC Act. The Government may take a decision not to proceed with the criminal case but to proceed with the departmental enquiry or in the alternative go for an enquiry before the Vigilance Tribunal which would also be comprehended by the KCS and CCA Rules. But vigilance proceedings will have to be treated as pending the moment a Vigilance case is registered as in the instant case as evidenced by Ext. P2 because Vigilance case is registered after the preliminary enquiry. The issuance of a charge sheet as is required in other criminal proceedings cannot be insisted upon in the context of Vigilance proceedings as such.

17. The argument is no doubt persuasive. But on a deeper analysis, I am not inclined to accept it. Firstly para 17 of Janakiraman does not postulate any distinction between criminal proceedings involving offences under the Penal Code, 1860 and vigilance proceedings pending before the Vigilance Court involving offences under the PC Act. If proceedings before the Vigilance Court are pending, the ratio in para 17 of Janakiraman should apply on all fours in the case of Note (i) to R.28(b)(i)(7) of Part II of K.S. and S.S.R. also. The embargo on inclusion of a person who faces a vigilance proceedings, from being included in the select list for promotion to a selection post would arise only after a charge sheet is drawn up by the Vigilance Court in that regard. Proceedings involving offences under the P.C. Act would be tried as warrant cases and therefore charges will have to be framed against the accused, before proceeding with the trial. There is no reason why the principle laid down in Janakiraman should not apply proprio vigore in the case of vigilance proceedings also.

18. The second reason is the collocation of words “vigilance or departmental proceedings” as occurring in Note (i) to R.28 (b)(i)(7). The vigilance and departmental proceedings are considered together in stipulating an embargo on inclusion of a delinquent employee in a select list to be published by the Government. If therefore issuance of memo of charges is treated as sine qua non for the purpose of pendency of disciplinary proceedings, governed by R.15 of the KCS and CCA Rules, the pendency of vigilance proceedings for the purpose of the Rule should be inferred only if charges are framed in that regard by the Vigilance Court.

19. But thirdly and more importantly, I think the very elaborate proceedings that is normally undertaken by the Government before sanctioning the prosecution of a Government servant in the vigilance court for offences under the PC Act should itself be taken as a reason for confining the embargo contemplated by the note to cases where charges are framed against the accused, in circumstances where pendency of a vigilance case is taken as a reason for not considering the delinquent employee for promotion. After a preliminary enquiry, F.I.R. is registered and investigation is undertaken by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau and final report is submitted to the Government. It is obvious that in several cases the Government may decide not to go in for prosecution under the P.C. Act. The Government may settle for departmental proceedings or in certain cases drop the proceedings altogether. The Government may either accept the recommendation of the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau or take a different decision in that regard. This even according to the Government, is a time consuming process. As is evidenced by the present case, Ext. P2 F.I.R. was registered on 30.5.2003 but it was only in 2008 the Government took a decision not to proceed before the Vigilance Court with a prosecution under the P.C. Act. In my view, it would be grossly arbitrary and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution of India, if embargo as contemplated by the note is applied at all times after the registration of the vigilance case. In such an event, the embargo stipulated in the note could be struck down as violative of Art.14 of the Constitution.”

16. We are unable to subscribe to the findings in Sasidharan's case (supra). The provision considered by the Apex Court for arriving at the conclusion in Janakiraman's case (supra) is distinct from Note (i) to Rule 28(b)(i)(7) of Part II KS & SSR. The marked distinction in the terminology of Note(i), with respect to pendency of Sessions cases and taking of vigilance proceedings was omitted to be noted. The distinction in the procedure with respect to Sessions and Vigilance cases was also not considered. The Code of Criminal Procedure, which is applicable for Sessions cases, do not provide for any preliminary enquiry and prima facie establishment of charges pursuant thereto as a precursor to registration of an FIR, but mandates the registration of FIR on information regarding the commission of a cognizable offence being given to an officer-in-charge of a police station. Per contra, as per Section 17A of the P.C Act previous approval from the appropriate Government is a prerequisite for conduct of any inquiry or enquiry, into any offence under the Act, alleged to have been committed by a public servant, after completion of which alone the FIR can be registered.

17. Another crucial distinction is that criminal proceedings pending against an officer in a Sessions or higher Court, for grave offences like murder, dacoity etc. are not offences linked to the service of the accused officer as a public servant, whereas vigilance proceedings are initiated specifically for commission of the offence of criminal misconduct by a public servant by abusing his official position. This would be akin to a disciplinary proceeding, where the requirement is the issuance of a charge-memo. If the appropriate Government, enjoined to grant an approval for registration of Vigilance case is of the opinion that the allegations are not grave enough for registration of FIR, it may direct a disciplinary proceeding to be carried on, in which event the next step would be issuance of a charge-memo. In the event of an approval being granted, the next step would be registration of an FIR.

18. The later part of Note(i), states about vigilance as well as departmental proceedings being taken against an officer on the charges being prima facie established in a preliminary enquiry. Paragraph 32 of the Vigilance Manual makes it clear that a preliminary enquiry by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau can result in either (i) registration of a Vigilance case by the Bureau, (ii) enquiry by the Vigilance Tribunal or (iii) departmental action against the suspect officer. The taking of disciplinary proceedings after conduct of preliminary enquiry by the Vigilance Department and prima facie establishment of charges is definitely more onerous than taking of disciplinary proceedings straightaway by the employer, for imposition of major penalty. The former part of Note 1, with respect to pending criminal proceedings before the Sessions or higher courts for grave offence and taking of disciplinary proceedings for imposition of major penalties, cannot therefore be equated with the later part, which is with respect to taking of vigilance or departmental proceedings after the charges are prima facie established in a preliminary enquiry. Thus understood, the words “officers against whom vigilance or departmental proceedings are taken after the charges are prima facie established in the preliminary enquiry” can only mean, initiation of departmental proceedings or vigilance proceedings. A vigilance case is commenced and deemed to be pending on submission of the report with recommendations, based on the preliminary enquiry conducted by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau along with the approval granted by the Government for a particular course of action, be it registration of FIR or placement of the matter before the Vigilance Tribunal. If the recommendation is for initiation of departmental proceedings, the commencement of the proceedings will be on issuance of charge sheet. Hence, we find that Sasidharan's case (supra) does not lay down the correct law. An officer against whom FIR is registered after conducting preliminary enquiry and obtaining approval for prosecution from the Government or recommended to be proceeded against departmentally by issuance of a charge-memo, is not eligible to be included in the select list. The DPC must adopt the sealed cover procedure in the case of such officers.

19. In the result, we find the directions in Exhibits P5 and P9 to be unsustainable and consequently set aside the orders impugned and allow the original petition. It is made clear that, if the sealed cover procedure has not been followed in the applicant's case, the DPC is bound to undertake such exercise, effective from the initial DPC meeting in which the applicant's name came up for consideration. No order as to costs.