Deepti Agrawal v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Finance

4 - Shri Rajeev Kumar Jhade Deputy Director, Directorate, Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Block-1, 1st Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - Sameer Mishra Sr. Accounts Officer, Directorate Of Culture And Archelogy, Mgm Museum, Civil Lines, Near Raj Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Ashutosh Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Addl. Advocate General 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru, J 31/10/2025

The instant Writ Appeal has been preferred against the order dated

28.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No. 4645 of 2022, whereby the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner seeking consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant Director (Finance) has been dismissed. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the writ Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been serving on the post of Assistant Director (junior pay scale) in Pay Matrix Level-12, and her case was due for consideration for promotion to the senior pay scale in Pay Matrix Level-13. However, pursuant to the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee, vide its order dated 23/02/2021, promoted several officers juniors to the petitioner while excluding her from consideration without assigning any reason. It is further submitted that no departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner till date. Though a criminal case has been registered, the investigation therein has not yet been concluded. Therefore, denial of promotion merely on the ground of registration of the FIR and pendency of the said criminal case is unsustainable in law. The petitioner prays for allowing the instant Writ Appeal. 3

Learned counsel for the State, while supporting the impugned order, would submit that though the matter has been forwarded by the ACB to the Law Department, however, it has not yet received the requisite sanction, as such the sanction for prosecution against the petitioner could not be received and therefore, the prosecution has not been initiated till date. He would place a copy of order dated 17/12/2020 passed by this Court in WPS No. 5327/2020 by which the further proceeding to the charge-sheet has been stayed.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the pleadings with utmost circumspection.

The learned Single Judge of this Court, while dismissing the Writ Petition, has observed as under:- “……………..

5. Taking into consideration the fact that the name of the petitioner was placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion to the post of Assistant Director (Finance), but he was not found suitable on account of the registration of an FIR under Sections 7(c) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, though the name of the petitioner has been kept in a 'sealed cover and would be considered after the conclusion of the criminal proceedings. The petitioner has preferred W.P.(Cr.) No.82/2021 against the registration of FIR, wherein an interim order has been passed in his favour, therefore, charge-sheet was not filed against him by the investigating officer.

With regard to the initiation of departmental enquiry, there is no necessity to initiate a departmental enquiry against the petitioner, since mere registration of a criminal case does not 4 constitute misconduct as defined under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. The name of the petitioner has been kept in a 'sealed cover and would be considered after the conclusion of the criminal proceedings.

In view of the aforesaid facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the matter. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed at the admission stage itself.”

6. On going through the impugned order, it is found that the Court, taking into consideration the fact that the name of the petitioner was placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion to the post of Assistant Director (Finance) but she was not found suitable due to the registration of an FIR under the provisions of the IPC as well as the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, observed that the petitioner’s name has been kept in a ‘sealed cover’ and would be considered after the conclusion of the criminal proceedings. It was also noted that the petitioner had preferred W.P.(Cr.) No.82/2021 challenging the registration of the said FIR, wherein an interim order had been passed in her favour, and subsequently, the said WP (Cr.) was disposed of directing the Investigating Officer to conclude the investigation within a period of three weeks from 25/07/2023 and submit a report before the competent Court.

7. While going through the copy of the Writ Petition bearing WPS No. 4645/2022, it is evident that the petitioner has not disclosed with regard to pendency of WPS No. 5327/2020, in which interim protection was granted by this Court in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has preferred the Writ Petition without disclosing the material facts, which itself show that she has not 5 approached this Court with clean hands. The petitioner preferred the writ petition i.e. WPS No. 4645/2022 with a simple prayer to quash the order dated 23/02/2021 and 30/03/2021, which are the promotion orders and sought a direction towards the respondents to consider the name of the petitioner for promotion to the senior scale in pay Matrix-13 w.e.f. the date the juniors to the petitioner have been considered for promotion. Though FIR under the provisions of the PC Act & IPC as well as Departmental proceeding pending against her, but she has not disclosed the same.

It is a settled proposition of law that any person invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution must approach the Court with clean hands and must disclose all material and relevant facts. Suppression or concealment of material information disentitles such a petitioner from seeking any relief in equity. The jurisdiction under Article 226 being discretionary in nature cannot be invoked by a person who is guilty of suppressing material facts or misleading the Court.

The Supreme Court, in K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. [(2008) 12 SCC 481], held that the party who approaches the Court must come with clean hands, put forward all facts before the Court without suppression, and that if there is suppression of material facts, the Court would be justified in refusing to entertain the petition, irrespective of the merits of the case.

In the present case, the petitioner failed to disclose the pendency of W.P. (S) No. 5327/2020, wherein interim protection was already granted in her favour. Such suppression of material facts amounts to an abuse of the process 6 of law and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. On this ground alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

It appears from the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge and record placed in the Writ appeal that the DPC has kept the name of the petitioner in a sealed cover because of pendency of criminal proceeding under the PC Act and the IPC.

In view of the foregoing discussion and having regard to the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge, we are of the considered view that there is no illegality in keeping the candidature of the petitioner in a sealed cover. The order impugned does not suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction.

Further, the scope of interference in an intra-court appeal is limited to cases where the order of the learned Single Judge suffers from patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error. In the present case, we find that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition.

Accordingly, the Writ Appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed at the admission stage itself. However, since the ACB has already sent a request letter to the Law Department seeking prosecution sanction, the competent authority is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, expeditiously, and without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove. 7

Since WPS No. 5327 of 2020 has been pending for nearly five years, in which interim protection has been operating in favour of the petitioner, the Registrar (Judicial) is directed to take appropriate steps to ensure that the matter is listed before the appropriate Bench as per the roster. Learned counsel for both the parties are also directed to extend their cooperation for the early and effective disposal of the said writ petition Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Rahul/Gowri (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice