• Opening of sealed cover withholding promotion

It is respectfully stated that Clause 3.1 of Office Memorandum No.22011/4 /91-Estt.(A) of 14th Sept., 1992 of Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training reproduced hereunder is not reasonable & justified for censured employee. 
“3.1 If any penalty is imposed on the Government servant as a result of the disciplinary proceedings or if he is found guilty in the criminal prosecution against him, the findings of the sealed cover/covers shall not be acted upon. His case for promotion may be considered by the next DPC in the normal course and having regard to the penalty imposed on him.” 
Since penalty of “Censure” does not have any currency & the employee also considered for promotion, the sealed cover of the employee having awarded penalty of “Censure” may be opened. If there is delay in replying or award of penalty, employee will be victim of the above rule. This may be explained by the following example: Let two employees who were under the zone of consideration for promotion on 01.01.14 were served with chargesheet on 10.12.13 to reply in defence within one month. One of the employee submitted his replies on 20.12.13 & the Disciplinary authority awarded him a penalty of “Censure” before 01.01.14. DPC considers him to be promoted to next higher grade since “Censure” does not have any currency period. The other employee submits his reply on 02.01.14 was also censured by the Disciplinary authority. However his candidature which will be in sealed cover will not be acted upon his case for promotion may be considered by the next DPC. as per Clause 3.1 of the above Office Memorandum. Will there will not be injustice in later case? 
I was also awarded a penalty of Censure. However in compliance to Para 3.1 of above Office Memorandum the sealed cover was not opened despite the fact that there are so many instances where an employee having awarded penalty of Censure prior to DPC have been promoted. 
The example cited above clearly proves that the rule itself is discriminatory and violates article 20 of the constitution of India since a double penalty i.e. (i) Minor penalty of censure and (ii) withholding of promotion is imposed to one of the candidate and also violates article 14 and 16 of the constitution of India since quantum of punishment is different for same type of penalty.
May kindly apprise that I have to proceed court of law for justice or there is any other alternative left behind for redressal of my grievance.