CW/16333/2026 of PUSHPENDRA SINGH HADA CONSTABLE NO. 1112, S/O SHRI RAGHUNATH SINGH HADA Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN on 2 September 2026

Order

02/09/2026

1. By filing the present writ petition the petitioner has made a limited prayer to issue directions to the official respondents to open the sealed cover containing recommendation of promotion committee qua him for promotion to the post of Head Constable against the vacancies for the year 2021-2022 and to grant him promotion to the post of Head Constable with all consequences benefits.

(2 of 10) [CW-16333/2026]

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Department Promotion Committee has recommended for promotion of the petitioner to the post of Head Constable for the vacancies of the year 2021-2022, but the same is kept in sealed cover and it is because of pendency of criminal case against the petitioner for offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘ the Act of 1988’)

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that because of the pendency of a criminal case only against the petitioner, the respondents cannot keep the recommendation for promotion in sealed cover and the respondents ought to have opened the sealed cover and the petitioner be accorded promotion on the post of Head Constable.

4. Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.

5. Admittedly, the petitioner is facing a criminal case for offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act of 1988. Because of pendency of a criminal case against the petitioner, the recommendation of his promotion for the post of Head Constable, has been kept in sealed cover.

6. For ready reference, the relevant provision dealing with the issue in question have been mentioned under Clause 12 of the circular dated 04.06.2008 issued by the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, which reads as under:- “12.

लम्बि तअनुशासनिककार्यवाही/

फौजदारीप्रकरणकापदोन्नति परप्रभाव 12.1

पदोन्नति केविचारणकेसमयय विचारणसीमामेंआनेवालेनिम्नलिखि त

प्रकारकेराजसेवकोंकेबारेमेंविशेषरूपसेविभागीयय पदोन्नति समिति का

ध्यान दिलाया जाए:-

(3 of 10) [CW-16333/2026]

(i) राजसेवकनिलम्बि तहों.

(ii) राजसेवककेविरुद्धअनुशासनिकप्राधिकारी द्वारा आरोपपत्र

प्रसारित

करदियागयाहो,

(iii) राजसेवककेविरूद्धसक्षमफौजदारी न्यायालयय मेंआरोपपत्र

प्रस्तुत

कियाजाकरअभियोजनलम्बि तहो। 12.2

अनुशासनिककार्यवाहीकेसंदर्भमेंययहस्पष्टस्थि ति हैकि अनुशासनिक

प्राधिकारीद्वाराआरोपपत्रविधिवतरूपसेप्रसारितकियेजानेकीस्थि ति मेंही

अनुशासनिकजांचकार्यवाहीलम्बि तहोनागानाजायेगा। 12.3

फौजदारी प्रकरणउसस्थि ति मेंलम्बि तमाना जावेगा जबस{ke

न्यायालयय मेंराजसेवककेविरूद्धइस्तगासा अथवा चालान(report of police)

प्रस्तुतकरदियागयाहोएवंन्यायालयय द्वाराउसकाप्रसंज्ञानलिया

गयाहो। 12.4

बन्दलिफाफा(sealed cover)

प्रक्रियाउसीपदकेलियेपश्चात्वर्ती

अवधि मेंआयोजितहोनेवालीसमस्तविभागीयय पदोन्नति समिति कीबैठकोंमें

भीअपनाईजावेगीऔरइसआशयय काअंकनकार्यवाहीविवरणमेंअंकित

कियाजावेगाजबतककि राजसेवककेविरूद्धलम्बि तअनुशासनिककार्यवाही /

फौजदारीप्रकरणनिस्तारितनहींहोजाए/

निलम्बनसेबहालनहींकरदिया जाए। 12.5

उपरोक्तराजसेवकोंकीपदोन्नति हेतुसुयोग्ययताकीजांचउनकेविरूद्ध

लम्बि तजांच/

फौजदारीप्रकरणों/

निलम्बनकोनजरअन्दाजकरतेहुयेकी

जाए।ययदि राजसेवकइनकेअतिरिक्तनिययमानुसारगुणावगुणकेआधारपर

अपनीस्वयंकीयोग्ययताकेआधारपरवययनितहोजाताहैतोहीउसकेचययन

कीसिफारिशएकबन्दलिफाफेमेंरखीजाए। 12.6

बन्दलिफाफेपर"

श्री / श्रीमती............

केसन्दर्भमेंविभागीयय

पदोन्नति समिति वर्ष........ में....

पदहेतुपदोन्नति हेतुविभागीयय पदोन्नति

समिति कीसिफारिशश्री.........

केविरूद्धअनुशासनात्मकजांच/ फौजदारी

प्रकरणकेलम्बि तरहनेतक/

निलम्बनसेबहालहोनेतकनहींखोलाजाए"

अंकितकियाजाए। 12.7

विभागीयय पदोन्नति समिति द्वाराराजसेवककीपदोन्नति हेतुचययनकी

सिफारिशबन्दलिफाफेमेंइसलियेरखीजाती हैकि उसकेविरूद्ध

अनुशासनिककार्यवाहीअथवाफौजदारीप्रकरणलम्बि तहैअथवावहनिलग्बित

है।चययनकीययहसिफारिशजोबन्दलिफाफेमेंरखीजातीहैवहइसशर्तके

साथहोती हैकि राजसेवककेविरूद्धलम्बि तअनुशासनिककार्यवाही /

फौजदारीप्रकरणमेंवहदोषमुक्तहोजाएअथवानिyEcu

सेबहालहोजाएतो

पदोन्नतकियाजाए।इसप्रकारकीस्थि ति मेंजबययदि राजसेवकउसकेविरूद्ध

लम्बि तअनुशासनिक/

फौजदारीप्रकरणमेंदोषमुक्तहोजाएअथवानिलम्बन

सेबहालहोजाए,

तोसम्बन्धि तप्राधिकारीबन्दलिफाफाखोलकरराजसेवक

कोपदोन्नतकरनेकीकार्यवाहीनिययमानुसारकरे।इसकेलियेविभागीयय पदोन्नति

समिति कीबैठककेसमक्षप्रकरणपुनःरखनेकीआवश्ययकतानहींहै। 12.8

ययदि ययहराजसेवकलम्बि तअनुशासनिककार्यवाहीअथवाफौजदारी

प्रकरणमेंदोषमुक्तहोजाएतोउसकेलिएबन्दलिफाफेमेंरखीगईरिक्ति पर

उसकीपदोन्नति उससेठीककनिष्ठराजसेवककीपदोन्नति केदिनांकसेही

होगीऔरवेतननिर्धारणभीउसीदिनांकसेकियाजायेगा।जहांतकप्रश्न

(4 of 10) [CW-16333/2026]

उसकीपदोन्नति सेवंचितरहीकालावधि कापूर्णवेतनभुगतानकियेजानेका है,

इससन्दर्भमेंसक्षमप्राधिकारीगुणावगुणकेआधारपरनिर्णयय करेंगे।ययदि

वेतनकेअन्तरकाभुगताननहींकियाजाएतोइसकेलिएस्पष्टकारणदिए

जाएजिसमेंययहदेख।जाएकि दोषमुक्ति तथ्यात्मकहैअथवातकनीकी/

संदेहके

लाभकेतkS र

पर।स्पष्टकियाजाताहैकि ययदि राजसेवककेविरूद्धलम्बि त

अनुशासनिककार्यवाहीअथवाफौजदारीप्रकरणमेंअभियोजनपक्षअधिरोपित आरोप/

अपराधकोप्रमाणित/

सिद्धकरवानेमेंअसफलरहाऔरराजसेवक

गुणात्गकआधारपरदोषमुक्त

होजाएतोउसेवेतनकेअन्तरकीराशि का

भुगतानदेयय होगा।ययदि अनुशासनिककारवाही/

फौजदारीप्रकरणमेंराजसेवक

कोसंदेहकालाभदेकरदोषमुक्तकियागयाहैयाअधिरोपितआरोप/अपराध

कासिद्धान्तः प्रगाणिकरणEkkuk

गयाहैकिन्तुचेतावनी,

परिवीक्षाकालाभ,

अन्यय कारणोंसेदण्डि तनहींकियागयाहो,

तोऐसेप्रकरणोंमेंवेतनकेअन्तर

कीराशि काभुगतानदेयय नहींहोगा। 12.9

किन्तुययदि अनुशासनिक/

फौजदारीप्रकरणमेंराजसेवककोदण्डि त

करदियाजाएतोऐसेराजसेवककीपदोन्नति हेतुसुयोग्ययताकीजांचबादके

वर्षोंकीरिक्तियोंकेविरूद्धकीजाएएवंउसपूर्ववर्षकी.

जिसमेंइसकेलिये

रिक्ति रखीगईथी,

कीसिफारिशकापुनर्विलोक।करइसराजसेवककेस्थान

परअन्यय राजसेवककीपदोन्नति कीजाए। 12.10

बन्दलिफाफाप्रकरणोंकीसमीक्षासमयय-

समयय परकीजाएताकि

अनुशासनिक/

फौजदारीप्रकरणनिर्णितहोतेहीबन्दलिफाफेपरआवश्ययक

कार्यवाहीकीजासके। 12.11

ययदि किसीमेंबन्दलिफाफाप्रक्रियाअपनाईअपनाईगईहोलेकिन

बादमेंययहज्ञातहोकि सम्बन्धि तराजसेवककेविरूद्धरिक्ति (

जिसकेविरूद्ध

उसकीपदोन्नति कीसिफारिशकीगईहै)

केदिनकोईअनुशासनिककार्यवाही /

फौजदारी प्रकरणलग्बितनहीं थाऔरत्रुटिपूर्णसूचना केकारणबन्द

लिफाफाप्रक्रियाविभागीयय पदोन्नति समिति द्वाराअपनालीगईथीतोइस

प्रकारकीfLFkfr

मेंसम्बन्धि तप्राधिकारीबन्दलिफाफाखोलकरराजसेवकको

निर्धारितप्रक्रियाकेअनुसारपदोन्नतकरनेकीकार्यवाहीकरे।ऐसेप्रकरणोंमें

विभागीयय पदोन्नति समिति केसमक्षप्रकरणरखेजानेकीआवश्ययकतानहींहै। 12.12

कुछराजसेवकनिययमोंमेंविहितप्रकियाकेअनुसारअनिवार्यरूपसे

सेवानिवृत्तकियेजानेकेबादपश्चात्वर्तीकार्यवाहीकेपरिणामस्वरूपपूर्णसेवा

लाभदेतेहुएराजकीयय सेवामेंपुनःलेलियेजातेहैं।सम्भवहैकि उसअवधि

मेंजबकि वेराजकीयय सेवासेबाहररहेहैंउनकीपदोन्नति केसंदर्भमेंराजकीयय

सेवासेबाहरहोनेकेकारणविचारनहींहोसका।इसप्रकारकेराजसेवक

निययमानुसारपदोन्नति केपात्रहोंगेऔरनिर्धारितप्रक्रियाकेअनुसारविभागीयय

पदोन्नति समिति का पुनर्विलोकनकिया जाकरपदोन्नति हेतुविचारकिया जायेगा। 12.13

ययहउल्लेखनीयय हैकि राजसेवककेविरूद्धलम्बि तअनुशासनात्मक

कार्यवाही अथवा फौजदारी प्रकरणलम्बि तहोनेकी स्थि ति को विभागीयय

पदोन्नति समिति वर्षकेप्रथमदिवसअर्थात्1

अप्रेलकीस्थि ति मेंहीनहींदेखा

जानाहैवरन्राजसेवकजिसरिक्ति केविरूद्धपदोन्नति हेतुचययनितकियाजाना

प्रस्तावितहै,

उसरिक्ति की उपलब्धता केसमयय बिन्दूतकलम्बि त

अनुशासनात्मककार्यवाहीअथवाफौजदारीप्रकरणकीस्थि ति विचारार्थहोगी।

ययहइसलियेआवश्ययकहैक्योंकि हालांकि रिक्तियोंकाअवधारण1

अप्रेलको

याउससमयय कीसम्भावनाओंकेमध्ययनजरकियाजाताहैकिन्तुसमस्त

(5 of 10) [CW-16333/2026]

रिक्तियां1

अप्रेलकोहीउपलब्धनहींहोतीहैं,

अपितुकुछरिक्तियांबादमेंभी

उपलब्धहोतीहैं।इससन्दर्भमेंनिम्नबिन्दूध्यानमेंरखनेयोग्यय हैः-

(i) विभागीयय पदोन्नति समिति द्वाराकिसीभीविभागीयय पदोन्नति

समित्ति वर्षमेंपदोन्नति हेतुविचारकरतेसमयय पदोन्नति केपात्र

राजसेवकोंकेविरुद्धलम्बि तअनुशासनिककार्यवाही / फौजदारी

प्रकरण/

दण्डादेश/

निलम्बनकीस्थि ति काआंकलनउसरिक्ति

केसंदर्भमेंकियाजायेगाजिसरिक्ति केविरूद्धराजसेवकपदोन्नति

हेतुविचारार्थहै,

अर्थात्राजसेवकजिसरिक्ति केविरूद्धचययनित

होताहै,

उसरिक्ति कीउपलब्धताजिसदिवसकोहोतीहै. उस

दिवसतककीस्थि ति मेंराजसेवककेविरुद्धलम्बि तअनुशासनिक

कार्यवाही/

फौजदारीप्रकरण/

दण्डादेश/

निलम्बनइत्यादि पर

विभागीयय पदोन्नति समिति कोविचारकरनाहोगा।

(ii) जिनप्रकरणोंमेंरिक्ति कीउपलब्धताकेदिवससेपूर्वही

विभागीयय पदोन्नति समिति कीबैठकआयोजितहोचुकीहोऔर

संबंधितराजसेवककेचययनितहोजानेकेपरिणामस्वरूपपदोन्नति

आदेशप्रसारितकियाजानाहोतो,

आदेशप्रसारितकरनेसेपूर्व

सम्बन्धि तप्राधिकारीकोययहसुनिश्चि तकियाजानाआवश्ययकहोगा

कि विभागीयय पदोन्नति समिति द्वारा वययनितराजसेवकरिक्ति की

उपलब्धताकीतिथि तकसेवाअभिलेखकेतौरपरस्वच्छछवि का है,

अर्थात्वययनितराजसेवककेसंदर्भमेंजिसदिवसकोरिक्ति

उपलब्धहुईहै,

उसदिवसतकअनुशासनिककार्यवाही/ फौजदारी

प्रकरण/

दण्डादेशएवंनिलम्बनकी स्थि ति नहीं हो, अन्ययथा

स्थि ति मेंउसकीपदोन्नति कोआस्थगित(in abeyance) रखते

हुयेसमिति की सिफारिशों को बन्दलिफाफेमेंरखेजानेकी

कार्यवाहीकीजाए।

(iii) जिनप्रकरणोंमेंविभागीयय पदोन्नति समिति कीबैठकआयोजित

होचुकीहैऔरराजसेवकजिसउपलब्धरिक्ति केविरुद्धचययनित

हुआहै,

उसरिक्ति कीउपलब्धताकीतिथि सेपूर्वहीराजसेवकके

विरूद्धलम्बि तअनुशासनिककार्यवाही /

आपराधिकफौजदारी

प्रकरणपारम्भहोकरनिर्णितहोजाएऔरउसेशास्ति अथवादण्ड

अधिरोपितहोजाएतोउसकेपदोन्नति आदेशप्रसारितनहींकिये

जाएऔरउसकीपदोन्नति सम्बन्धीसिफारिशोंकोआस्थगितरखते

हुयेविभागीयय पदोन्नति समिति कीबैठकआयोजितकरकेप्रकरणके

पुनर्विलोकनकीकार्यवाहीकीजाए,

ताकि उक्तअयोग्यय होचुके

राजसेवककोपदोन्नति काप्रकरणनिस्तारितहोकरअन्यय सुयोग्यय

राजसेवकोंकोपदोन्नति कालाभप्राप्तहोसके।

(iv)

ऐसेप्रकरणोंमेंजिनमेंविभागीयय पदोन्नति समिति कीबैठक

आयोजितहोचुकीहोऔरराजसेवकोंकेपदोन्नति केचययनकी

सिफारिशोंकेउपरान्तआदेशप्रसारणकीस्थि ति मेंराजसेवकजिस

दिवसको उपलब्धरिक्ति केविरूद्धचययनितहुआहै, उसकी

पदोन्नति काआदेशप्रसारितहोनेसेपूर्वययदि किसीमामलेमेंययह

राजसेवकनिलम्बि तहोजाएतोवहराजसेवकजबतकनिलम्बनसे

बहालनहींहोजाए,

तबतकपदोन्नति नादेश

आस्थगितरखाजाए।

उसकाचययनस्वतःहीबन्दलिफाफेमेंआजायेगा।

(v) जिनप्रकरणोंमेंविभागीयय पदोन्नति समिति कीबैठकरिक्ति

उत्पन्नहोनेकेपश्चात्होरहीहो(

विशेषकरपूर्ववर्षोंकीरिक्तियोंपर

(6 of 10) [CW-16333/2026]

पदोन्नति हेतु)

औरकिसीराजसेवककेविरुद्धकोईअनुशासनात्मक /

फौजदारी प्रकरणजो उसकेलिएप्राप्तहुईरिकि।केपश्चात्

प्रारम्भहुआहोऔरबैठककेदिनांककोलम्बि तहो,

तोययहप्रकरण

उसराजरोवक

कीपदोन्नति मेंबाधकनहींहोगाचाहेइसप्रकरणमें

राजसेवकको सेवासेपदच्युत(dismissal) /

सेवासेहटाने (removal)

केअतिरिक्तअन्यय कोईसजादीगईहो।

(vi) वर्षकेप्रथमदिवसकोराजसेवककेविरूद्धअनुशासनात्मक/

फौजदारी प्रकरण/

निलम्बनलम्बि तहो जिसकेकारणबन्द

लिफाफेकीकार्यवाहीआवश्ययकहै,

परन्तुबैठकसेपूर्वहीययदि

उसकानिस्तारणहोजाएतोइससम्बन्धमेंप्रसारितआदेशप्रवृत्त होगा,

बन्दलिफाफेकीप्रकियानहीं।"

7. A bare perusal of Clause 12.7 of the circular dated 04.06.2008 indicates that the sealed cover in which the fate of delinquent employee has been kept can be opened in the following circumstances; that only if he is acquitted in the disciplinary proceedings/criminal case pending against him or reinstated from suspension i.e. his suspension has been revoked.

8. In the instant case, admittedly, a criminal case is pending against him before the competent court of law, hence the case of the respondent falls under Clause 12.7 of the circular, which clearly stipulates that fate of the respondent which has been kept in a sealed cover can be opened, in case, suspension of a delinquent employee is revoked.

9. Recently, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Dr. Anil Kumar Paliwal in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 722/2025 decided on 03.07.2026 has observed as under:- "2. The challenged in the present appeal is to the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 28.03.2025, whereby the learned Single Judge, while interpreting Clause 12.7 of the Circular dated 04.06.2008, has held that the seal cover shall be opened

(7 of 10) [CW-16333/2026] relating to consideration for promotion of an individual if his suspension order has been revoked, even if a criminal case is pending against him.

3. We notice that Clause 12.7 of the Circular relates to departmental enquiry proceedings. Be that as it may, criminal proceedings have a separate role to play and, therefore, apart from Clause 12.7, if a criminal case is pending against any individual, he cannot be awarded with promotion during the period when he is under cloud. Such a view taken otherwise would result in causing departmental chaos.

4. A similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. K.V. Jankiraman and Others, reported in (1991) 4 SCC 109. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment read as under: “13. Paras 5, 6 and 7 of the Memorandum then read as follows: "5. Where the acquittal in a court case is not on merits but purely on technical grounds, and the Government either proposes to take the matter to a higher court or to proceed against the officer departmentally, the appointing authority may review whether the ad-hoc promotion should be continued.

6. Where the acquittal by court is on technical grounds, if the Government does not propose to go in appeal to a higher court or to take further departmental action, action should be taken in the same manner as if the officer had been acquitted by the court on merits.

7. If the officer concerned is not acquitted/exonerated in the court proceedings or the departmental proceedings, the ad-hoc promotion already granted should be brought to an

(8 of 10) [CW-16333/2026] end by the issue of the ‘further order’ contemplated in the order of ad-hoc promotion [Please see para 3(vi) above] and the officer concerned reverted to the post from which he was promoted on ad- hoc basis. After such reversion, the officer may be considered for future promotion in the usual course by the next D.P.C."

14. xxxxxxxxxxx

15. xxxxxxxxxxx

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 com-menced, 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 initi-ated at the instance of the interested persons, they are kept pending deliberately. Many

(9 of 10) [CW-16333/2026] 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: "(1) consideration for promotion, selection grade,crossing the efficiency bar or higher scale of paycannot be withheld merely on the ground ofpendency of a disciplinary or criminal proceedingsagainst an official;

(2) ********

(3) ********

(4) the sealed cover procedure can be resorted 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

(10 of 10) [CW-16333/2026] already been issued to the employee. Thus read, there is no inconsistency in the two conclusions.”

5. In the present case, however, it is informed by learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent has also been acquitted in the criminal case and after the acquittal, the State has opened his sealed cover.

6. In view of above facts, while we notice that the relief has been granted to the respondent, thus judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and the view taken therein, is held to be not sustainable in law and part of the said judgment is set aside with aforesaid observations.

7. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. "

10. In view of the facts of the present case, so also the provisions given in Circular dated 04.06.2008 and the observation of the Hon'ble Division Bench as referred above, the Court finds no substance in this writ petition. Hence, the same is dismissed being devoid of merit.

11. The stay application and pending application/s, if any, also stand disposed of. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J 176 S/SHRUTI SHARMA