LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a sealed cover procedure can be adopted for promotion when no departmental inquiry is pending against the officer.
CASE TYPE: Service Law
Case Name: Dr. Ajit Kumar Shrivastava vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Judgment Date: 21 October 2022
Date of the Judgment: 21 October 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 945
Judges: Ajay Rastogi, J. and C.T. Ravikumar, J.
Can an officer’s promotion be withheld based on a pending show cause notice, even if no formal disciplinary inquiry has been initiated? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent case concerning a member of the Indian Forest Services (IFS). The court examined whether the State of Madhya Pradesh was justified in keeping the appellant’s promotion in a sealed cover, despite the absence of a formal inquiry under the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969. This judgment clarifies the circumstances under which a sealed cover procedure can be invoked in promotion cases. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice C.T. Ravikumar, with Justice Rastogi authoring the opinion.
Case Background
The appellant, Dr. Ajit Kumar Shrivastava, an IFS officer, was considered for promotion to the post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests. In a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meeting held on 12th May, 2020, his junior was promoted, but his candidature was kept in a sealed cover. This action was taken despite no departmental inquiry being initiated against him under the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969. The appellant had earlier received a show cause notice on 22nd April, 2016, regarding certain allegations, to which he had responded on 24th May, 2016. However, no further action was taken by the department. The appellant challenged this inaction, and the matter reached the Supreme Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 17th April, 2016 | Preliminary enquiry committee submits report against the appellant. |
| 22nd April, 2016 | Show cause notice issued to the appellant. |
| 24th May, 2016 | Appellant submits a detailed response to the show cause notice. |
| 5th February, 2016 | DPC meets for promotion to Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, keeps appellant’s recommendation in sealed cover. |
| 5th March, 2016 | Orders issued for promotion of other officers, but appellant’s case is kept in sealed cover. |
| 1st August, 2018 | Tribunal directs opening of sealed cover, appellant promoted to Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests. |
| 12th May, 2020 | DPC meets for promotion to Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, keeps appellant’s candidature in sealed cover. |
| 4th September, 2020 | Junior officer promoted to Principal Chief Conservator of Forests. |
| 13th January, 2022 | Central Administrative Tribunal directs opening of the sealed cover. |
| 28th April, 2022 | High Court sets aside the Tribunal’s order. |
| 8th July, 2022 | High Court dismisses the review petition. |
| 21st October, 2022 | Supreme Court allows the appeal, directs opening of the sealed cover. |
Course of Proceedings
The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) initially ruled in favor of the appellant, directing the State to open the sealed cover and grant him consequential benefits. However, the High Court of Judicature at Madhya Pradesh overturned the CAT’s decision, stating that a pending show cause notice justified keeping the promotion in a sealed cover. The High Court also noted that the appellant had challenged the show cause notice before the Tribunal, and an interim order had been passed, which had prevented the initiation of a departmental inquiry under the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969. The High Court directed the Tribunal to decide the pending Original Applications (OAs) related to the show cause notice. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court’s order.
Legal Framework
The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969. These rules provide the framework for disciplinary actions against members of the All India Services. Specifically, the court discusses:
- Rule 3(1) and 3(2A) of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968: These rules pertain to the conduct expected of a member of the Indian Forest Service. The show cause notice invoked these rules, alleging conduct adverse to the expectations from an IFS officer.
- Rule 6 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969: This rule provides for penalties that can be imposed on a member of the service for good and sufficient reasons.
- Rule 8 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969: This rule outlines the procedure for imposing major penalties.
- Rule 10 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969: This rule outlines the procedure for imposing minor penalties.
The Court noted that the disciplinary rules under the All India Services Act, 1951, provide a schedule of penalties and the procedure for imposing them. The court emphasized that a disciplinary inquiry must be initiated under Rule 8 or Rule 10 of the Rules 1969 before any penalty can be proposed.
Arguments
The arguments presented before the Supreme Court can be summarized as follows:
Appellant’s Arguments:
- The appellant argued that no disciplinary inquiry under Rule 8 or Rule 10 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, was ever initiated or pending against him.
- He contended that the show cause notice issued in 2016 did not constitute a disciplinary inquiry and that he had submitted a detailed response to it.
- The appellant asserted that the respondents’ failure to initiate a formal inquiry cannot justify keeping his promotion in a sealed cover.
- He argued that the High Court erred in attributing the delay in initiating a departmental inquiry to him due to his challenge to the show cause notice.
- The appellant sought the opening of the sealed cover and consequential benefits.
Respondents’ Arguments:
- The respondents contended that the show cause notice dated 22nd April, 2016, was pending against the appellant.
- They argued that due to an interim order passed by the Tribunal in the OA filed by the appellant challenging the show cause notice, they were precluded from initiating a departmental inquiry.
- The respondents submitted that the matter had been referred to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) for approval of a minor penalty.
- The State argued that the delay in initiating the departmental inquiry was due to the appellant’s actions.
Submissions of Parties
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| No Disciplinary Inquiry Pending | No formal inquiry initiated under Rule 8 or 10 of the Rules 1969. | Appellant |
| Show cause notice is not a disciplinary inquiry. | Appellant | |
| Detailed response to show cause notice submitted, no further action. | Appellant | |
| Delay in Inquiry | Delay not attributable to the appellant; no justification for sealed cover. | Appellant |
| Interim stay by Tribunal prevented inquiry. | Respondents | |
| Pending Show Cause Notice | Show cause notice was pending against the appellant. | Respondents |
| Matter referred to UPSC for approval of minor penalty. | Respondents |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue the court addressed was:
- Whether the State was justified in keeping the appellant’s promotion in a sealed cover based on a pending show cause notice when no formal disciplinary inquiry was initiated or pending under the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the State was justified in keeping the appellant’s promotion in a sealed cover based on a pending show cause notice when no formal disciplinary inquiry was initiated or pending under the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969. | Not Justified. | The Court held that a show cause notice does not constitute a disciplinary inquiry under the Rules 1969. The Court stated that the State could not justify keeping the promotion in a sealed cover in the absence of an actual disciplinary inquiry under Rule 8 or Rule 10 of the Rules 1969. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court did not explicitly cite any case laws or books in this judgment. However, the court referred to the following legal provisions:
- All India Services Act, 1951: The source of power for the Central Government to frame rules for disciplinary actions against members of the All India Services.
- All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968: Specifically, Rule 3(1) and 3(2A) which pertain to the conduct expected of a member of the Indian Forest Service.
- All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969: The primary rules governing disciplinary proceedings, specifically Rules 6, 8 and 10.
Authorities Considered by the Court
| Authority | How Considered | Court |
|---|---|---|
| All India Services Act, 1951 | Referred to as the source of power for disciplinary rules. | Parliament of India |
| All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968, Rule 3(1) and 3(2A) | Mentioned as the rules under which the show cause notice was issued. | Central Government |
| All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, Rule 6 | Mentioned as the rule providing for penalties. | Central Government |
| All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, Rule 8 | Mentioned as the rule outlining the procedure for major penalties. | Central Government |
| All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, Rule 10 | Mentioned as the rule outlining the procedure for minor penalties. | Central Government |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How Treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Appellant: No disciplinary inquiry was pending. | Accepted. The Court emphasized that no formal inquiry under Rule 8 or 10 of the Rules 1969 was initiated. |
| Appellant: Show cause notice is not a disciplinary inquiry. | Accepted. The Court clarified that a show cause notice does not equate to a disciplinary inquiry. |
| Appellant: Delay in inquiry not attributable to the appellant. | Accepted. The Court held that the appellant’s challenge to the show cause notice did not justify the delay in initiating a formal inquiry. |
| Respondents: Show cause notice was pending. | Rejected. The Court clarified that a show cause notice is not a disciplinary inquiry. |
| Respondents: Interim stay prevented inquiry. | Rejected. The Court stated that the interim stay was a “lame excuse” and did not justify the delay. |
| Respondents: Matter referred to UPSC for minor penalty. | Not Accepted. The Court noted that proposing a penalty before initiating a disciplinary inquiry was putting the “cart before the horse.” |
How Each Authority Was Viewed by the Court?
The Court primarily relied on the interpretation of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969. The court highlighted that the procedure for imposing penalties under Rule 6* could only be initiated after a disciplinary inquiry under Rule 8* (for major penalties) or Rule 10* (for minor penalties) had been conducted. The court emphasized that a show cause notice, as in this case, does not constitute a disciplinary inquiry under the rules. The court also clarified that the All India Services Act, 1951 was the source of power for the Central Government to frame disciplinary rules.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that no formal disciplinary inquiry, as required under the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, had been initiated against the appellant. The court emphasized that a show cause notice does not equate to a disciplinary inquiry and that the State could not justify keeping the promotion in a sealed cover based on a mere show cause notice. The court also found the State’s explanation for the delay in initiating the departmental inquiry to be unsatisfactory.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Lack of Disciplinary Inquiry | 40% |
| Show Cause Notice Not Equivalent to Inquiry | 30% |
| Unsatisfactory Explanation for Delay | 20% |
| Rules of Natural Justice | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court’s decision was primarily based on the legal interpretation of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, which constitutes 70% of the reasoning, while the factual aspects of the case formed 30% of the reasoning.
Logical Reasoning
Judgment
The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in setting aside the Tribunal’s order. The Court emphasized that a show cause notice is not equivalent to a disciplinary inquiry. The Court observed that the State was attempting to impose a penalty without following the due procedure as prescribed under the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969. The Court stated:
“In our considered view, in the absence of a disciplinary action for imposing minor/major penalties as contemplated under Rule 10 or Rule 8 of the Rules 1969 either initiated or pending, there could not be any occasion of proposing the penalty to be inflicted upon the delinquent officer…”
The Court further noted:
“Before a disciplinary enquiry being initiated in terms of the procedure prescribed under Rules 1969, there could not be any possibility of proposing a punishment as being contemplated under Rule 6 of the Rules 1969…”
The Court also rejected the State’s defense that the appellant’s challenge to the show cause notice had prevented the initiation of a departmental inquiry, terming it a “lame excuse.” The court stated:
“…no adverse presumption can be drawn that because of pendency of OA filed by the appellant before the Tribunal in questioning the show cause notice, the delay caused in initiation of departmental enquiry be attributable to the appellant…”
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the orders of the High Court, and directed the respondents to open the sealed cover of the DPC held on 12th May, 2020, and pass further orders in accordance with law with all consequential benefits.
Key Takeaways
- A show cause notice does not constitute a formal disciplinary inquiry under the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969.
- A sealed cover procedure for promotion cannot be adopted based solely on a pending show cause notice.
- A disciplinary inquiry under Rule 8 or Rule 10 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, must be initiated before any penalty can be proposed.
- The delay in initiating a disciplinary inquiry cannot be attributed to the officer if they have challenged the show cause notice.
- The State must follow the due procedure as prescribed under the rules before proposing any penalty.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the respondents to:
- Open the sealed cover of the DPC held on 12th May, 2020, concerning the appellant.
- Pass further orders in accordance with law, with all consequential benefits, as per the Tribunal’s order.
- Complete the necessary compliance within two months.
Development of Law
The judgment clarifies that a show cause notice does not constitute a disciplinary inquiry and cannot be the basis for keeping a promotion in a sealed cover. This reaffirms the importance of following due process under the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, before imposing any penalty or withholding promotions. The ratio decidendi of the case is that a formal disciplinary inquiry under Rule 8 or Rule 10 of the Rules 1969 must be initiated or pending for the sealed cover procedure to be invoked. This position of law clarifies the conditions under which the sealed cover procedure can be adopted.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Dr. Ajit Kumar Shrivastava vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others emphasizes the importance of adhering to the prescribed procedures under the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969. The court clarified that a mere show cause notice cannot be the basis for keeping a promotion in a sealed cover and that a formal disciplinary inquiry must be initiated or pending for such action. This judgment provides clarity on the rights of civil servants and the obligations of the State in disciplinary matters.
Category
Parent Category: Service Law
Child Categories:
- Promotion
- Sealed Cover Procedure
- Disciplinary Inquiry
- All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969
- Rule 6, All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969
- Rule 8, All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969
- Rule 10, All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969
FAQ
Q: What is a sealed cover procedure in the context of promotions?
A: The sealed cover procedure is used when an employee is under a cloud of suspicion, such as a pending disciplinary inquiry. In such cases, the promotion is kept in a sealed cover, and if the employee is cleared, the promotion is opened.
Q: Can a show cause notice be the basis for keeping a promotion in a sealed cover?
A: No, according to this Supreme Court judgment, a show cause notice alone is not sufficient to justify keeping a promotion in a sealed cover. A formal disciplinary inquiry must be initiated.
Q: What is the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969?
A: These are rules framed by the Central Government to regulate disciplinary actions against members of the All India Services, including the Indian Forest Service.
Q: What are the key takeaways from this judgment for civil servants?
A: The key takeaways are that a show cause notice is not a disciplinary inquiry, a formal inquiry must be initiated before a promotion is withheld, and the State must follow due procedure before imposing any penalty.
Q: What should the State do if they want to withhold a promotion due to misconduct?
A: The State must initiate a formal disciplinary inquiry under Rule 8 or Rule 10 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, before taking any action to withhold a promotion.