The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of locus standi in employment disputes, specifically in relation to challenging the validity of orders affecting promotion and demotion.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the orders dated 3/8/2022 (Annex.7), 3/8/2022 (Annex.8) and 11/1/2022 (Annex.6) and a prayer has been made to allow the petitioner to continue on the post of Superintending Engineer with all consequential benefits.

2. It is inter alia indicated in the petition that the petitioner was promoted on the post of Executive Engineer by order dated 23/6/2013. Whereafter, the DPC after considering the candidature of the petitioner recommended the name of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Superintending Engineer and by order dated 2/11/2020 he was promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer (O & M) on the basis of merit-cum-seniority.

3. Further submissions have been made that a charge sheet was issued to the respondent no. 4 and he was visited with penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect by order dated 9/12/2013, against the said order an appeal was filed before the Chairman, DISCOM, which came to be dismissed by order dated 3/2/2015 and, therefore, the respondent no. 4 was not promoted to the post of Executive Engineer for the year 2012-13. The respondent no.4 filed second appeal before the Board of Directors, which second appeal came to be dismissed on 23/12/2019 on the ground that there was no provision of second appeal.

4. The respondent No. 4 filed CWP No. 140/2020, which was withdrawn on 5/2/2021 with liberty to agitate the case before the respondent Department and it was directed that the respondents may deal with the same in accordance with law.

5. The Board of Directors by its order dated 11/1/2022 (Annex.6) reviewed its decision of imposing penalty on the respondent no. 4 and exonerated him. Based on the said exoneration, a review DPC was convened and the candidature of the respondent no. 4 was considered and he was promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer w.e.f. 1/1/2022 by order dated 3/8/2022 (Annex.7). As a consequence, the petitioner stood demoted as Executive Engineer and approached the respondents by filing representation against acceptance of the appeal of respondent no.4 and holding of review DPC.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Vinay Jain submitted that the action of the respondents in passing the order dated 11/1/2022 (Annex.6) accepting the second appeal filed by the respondent no. 4 and reviewing its decision of penalty imposed on him is ex facie illegal.

7. Submissions have been made that admittedly under the Regulations, second appeal is not maintainable and, therefore, the second appeal filed by the respondent no. 4 was rejected. The respondent no. 4 approached the High Court and withdrew the writ petition with liberty to approach the respondents by way of a representation and it was directed to be decided in accordance with law. The respondents, despite noticing that there was no provision of second appeal, only on account of the fact that this Court had passed the order to decide the representation in accordance with law, on account of misrepresentation by the respondent no. 4 qua the implication of the order, has passed the order, which is without jurisdiction and against the Regulations and, therefore, the same deserves to be set aside.

8. Further submissions have been made that the action of the respondents in holding review DPC and as a result thereof demoting the petitioner without affording him an opportunity of hearing is also not justified as before demoting the petitioner he should have been given an opportunity of hearing and on account of violation of principles of natural justice, the order impugned deserves to be set aside.

9. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondents, who have filed detailed response to the writ petition.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4, Mr. Falgun Buch made vehement submissions regarding locus standi of the petitioner in questioning the validity of the decision of Board of Directors in passing the order date