Aradhe, J. -- 1. By an order dated 12.4.2013 passed in review petition, learned Single Judge has referred the following questions for consideration by a Larger Bench :

“(1) Whether a Junior Engineer promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer under the Time Bound Promotion Scheme till is absorption, can be treated as Assistant Engineer for all purposes?

(2) Whether against such a Assistant Engineer promoted under Time Bound Promotion Scheme, the disciplinary action could have been taken only by the Board/Chief Engineer in view of the notification dated 2.9.2003 (sic 5.10.1991)?”

2. The background facts, leading to reference, briefly stated, are that the respondent was initially appointed on the post of Junior Engineer and later on promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer under the Time Bound Promotion Scheme. A show cause notice was issued to him on 31.7.2008 by the Superintending Engineer for misconduct. Vide order dated 20.10.2008, the Superintending Engineer imposed the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect. The aforesaid order was challenged by the respondent in Writ Petition No.15123/2008 (S) inter alia on the ground that the Superintending Engineer was not competent to impose punishment as the competent authority under the order dated 2.9.2003 issued by M.P. Poorv Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Co.Ltd. is the Executive Director/Chief Engineer. Learned Single Judge in view of the concession given bythe counsel for the review petitioners, by order dated 19.1.2009 allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of punishment dated 20.10.2008 and granted liberty to them to pass a fresh order.

3. The petitioners, thereafter filed the Review Petition No.172/2009 seeking review of the order dated 19.1.2009, inter alia, on the ground that in view of the order dated 7.5.1999 issued by erstwhile M.P. Electricity Board, the competent authority to impose the punishment on the Assistant Engineer who is promoted under the Time Bound Promotion Scheme till his absorption against the regular vacancy, is Superintending Engineer. Learned Single Judge, during course of hearing of the review petition, by order dated 12.4.2013 referred the questions, stated supra, for consideration by a Larger Bench.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though a Junior Engineer is granted the benefit of promotion under the Time Bound Promotion Scheme yet he carries out the duties and functions of the post of Junior Engineer. It is further submitted that once a Junior Engineer is absorbed against regular vacancy of Assistant Engineer, he would only then have power and functions of Assistant Engineer. While inviting the attention of this Court to the order dated 7.5.1999, it was submitted tht the Superintending Engineer continues to be disciplinary authority in respectr of Junior Engineer till the Junior Engineers promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer undr the Time Bound Promotion Scheme are absorbed against the regular vacancy of Assistant Engineer. It is also urged that in order to remove frustration, the employees are given a higher grade in terms of emoluments while retaining them in the same category. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the decision in Dwijen Chandra Sarkar and another v. Union of India and others [(1999)2 SCC 119].

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the order dated 7.5.1999 provides that a Junior Engineer shall be Class II Officer and, therefore, the disciplinary authority in respect of such an Assistant Engineer to impose punishment is Chief Engineer in view of the order dated 2.9.2003. Learned senior counsel for the intervener has submitted that promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer under the Time Bound Promotion Scheme is not automatic and it is subject to selection and in view of the order dated 2.9.2003, the Executive Director/Chief Engineer is the competent authority to impose punishment o