IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ANIL KUMAR SINHA, J.
CWJC No. 314 of 2023
(6.1.2026)
Madhurendra Prasad ... Petitioner
vs.
Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Bihar State Power (Holding) Co. Ltd. & Ors. ... Respondents
Service Law – Departmental Proceeding – Departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner posted as Assistant Electrical Engineer – Proceeding initiated by the General Manager (HR & Administration) and punishment imposed – Powers to award Major to officers of the rank of Assistant Electrical Engineer stood vested in the Managing Director/Executive Director (HR) – As held by the Hon'ble High Court, a disciplinary proceeding can only be initiated by an authority competent to do so – In the present case, in the memo of charge, there is no indication that the same was served under the direction of the Managing Director, i.e. the Appointing Authority, nor does it bear any approval of the appointing/disciplinary authority – The impugned orders, having been issued by an authority lacking jurisdiction, are wholly without authority of law in the circumstances, the very initiation of the departmental proceeding and consequential orders stand vitiated – Impugned orders quashed – Respondents directed to pay the entire amount, if any, deducted in lieu of punishment awarded – Writ application allowed. (Paras 33, 38, 40 to 44)
Union of India Vs. B.V Gopinath, (2014) 1 SCC 351; State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Pramod Kumar, (2018) 17 SCC 677; Sunny Abraham Vs. Union of India, (2021) 20 SCC 12; Uday Pratap Singh Vs. State of Bihar, 2017 (4) PLJR 195—Relied.
Hukumchand Shyam Lal Vs. Union of India, AIR 1976 SC 789; Manikant Pathak Vs. State of Bihar, 1997 (1) PLJR 664 (FB); Vijay Kumar Mathur Vs. SBPDCL, 2023 (3) BLJ 626 : 2023 (2) PLJR 668—Referred.
Anil Kumar Sinha, J.—The present writ application has been filed for quashing the resolution, dated 12.08.2014, issued, by the General Manager (HR & Administration), South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited, Patna, under Memo No. 1530, whereby departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and for quashing the resolution/Order No. 664, dated 13.05.2016, by which the punishment of withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect was imposed against the petitioner. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing resolution no. 267, dated 14.02.2017, whereby the earlier punishment was modified to the extent of withholding of one annual increment with noncumulative effect, as well as for quashing the letter no. 647, dated 22.09.2022, whereby the petitioner was informed that his review application has been rejected.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was initially appointed as Junior Electrical Engineer, vide Notification No. 1097, dated 12.11.1999, issued by the Joint Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred as ‘BSEB’). Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Electrical Engineer on 17.09.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred from the Electric Supply Sub-Division, Katihar (Urban) to the Electric Supply Sub-Division, Rajgir with effect from 25.10.2012. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner joined at Rajgir as Assistant Electrical Engineer.
3. With the enactment of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 stood repealed and by virtue of Section 172 thereof, the BSEB ceased to exist. In exercise of powers under Section 132 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the State Government issued a Notification, dated 30.10.2012, restructuring the erstwhile BSEB into the Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited (in short, ‘BSPHCL’) and its four subsidiary companies, including the South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited (in short, ‘SBPDCL’).
4. In terms of Section 133 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the services of all employees of the erstwhile BSEB were initially transferred to BSPHCL on the same terms and conditions and thereafter, in accordance with the said notification, employees were allocated to the respective subsidiary companies.
5. Clause 6 of the Notification deals with transfer of persons and Schedule F deals with detailed scheme including the terms and conditions for transfer of the employees in transmission, generation, distribution and common services. The petitioner, being posted at Rajgir, which is a distribution division, became an employee of the SBPDCL with effect from 01.11.2012.
6. The SBPDCL is governed by its Board of Directors, one of whom is the Managing Director (MD), who functions as the Chief Executive and Administrative Head of the Company and thereby became the employer of the petitioner in place of the BSEB. The field undertakings of the company are headed by the General Manager -cum- Chief Engineer.
7. Prior to the posting of the petitioner at Rajgir on 25.10.2012, a tender for appointment of a franchisee for collection of electricity charges/bills from consumers was issued by the erstwhile BSEB. Pursuant thereto, M/s Mithilesh Enterprises was selected as the franchisee and a Letter of Intent, under Memo No. 3281, dated 28.08.2012, was issued by the Electrical Superintending Engineer, Biharsharif.
8. In terms of Clause 4 of the Letter of Intent, dated 28.08.2012, the Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Rajgir, was designated as the Work Incharge for operation of the contract. Further, Clause 4.5 (B) of the agreement executed between the franchisee and the Electrical Superintending Engineer, Bihar Sharif, stipulated that the BSEB may, at any time during the subsistence of the agreement, authorize any person(s) to inspect, verify and audit the performance, records and accounts of the franchisee.
9. The contract with the said franchisee was for a period of three years. Howe
Union of India vs. B.V Gopinath
State of Tamil Nadu vs. Pramod Kumar
Sunny Abraham vs. Union of India
Uday Pratap Singh vs. State of Bihar
Hukumchand Shyam Lal vs. Union of India
Departmental proceedings initiated by an incompetent authority are null and void, requiring adherence to statutory delegation for valid charges and actions.
Charge memo in disciplinary proceedings must be approved by the disciplinary authority; lack thereof renders entire proceedings vitiated ab initio, warranting quashing without remand in peculiar circ....
Termination of a government employee without evidence and proper authority violates Article 311 and principles of natural justice.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.