Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahedra Pratap Singh vs Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut ... on 21 May, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
ON THE 21 st OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 5507 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
MAHEDRA PRATAP SINGH S/O SHRI R.P. SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE IN FRONT OF
TARA SADAN SCHOOL KAYALJI KI KOTHI VIDISHA
ROAD, ASHOKNAGAR M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY MR. B.P. SINGH - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA KSHETRA VIDYUT
VITARAN COMPANY LTD. MANAGING DIRECTOR
NISHTHA PRISHAR GOVINDPURA BHOPAL (M.P.)
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (HR A) MADHYA
PRADESH MADHYA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITARAN
CO. LTD. NISHTHA PARISHAR GOVINDPURA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (GR) MADHYA
PRADESH MADHYA KSHETRAV VIDYUT VITARAN
CO.LTD. MOTIJHEEL (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SHRI RAJEEV KUMAR GUPTA DY. G.M. MADHYA
PRADESH MADHYA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITARAN
C O . L T D . GWALIOR MOTIJHEEL GWALIOR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. ANIL SHARMA - ADVOCATE)
WRIT PETITION No. 6036 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
NITIN DONGRE S/O SHRI VASUDEV DONGRE, AGED
2
ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE B-8
SANTUSHTI COLONY SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY MR. B.P. SINGH - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA KSHETRA VIDYUT
VITARAN COMPANY LTD. THROUGH ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR NISHTHA PARISHAR
GOVINDPURA BHOPAL (M.P.) (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (HR AND A) MADHYA
KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD. NISHTHA
PRISHAR, GOVINDPURA, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (GR) MADHYA
KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD. MOTIJHEEL,
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SHRI RAJEEV KUMAR GUPTA, DY. G.M.
(HOLDING LOOK AFTER CHARGE CGM) O/O
CGM(GR) MADHYA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN
CO. LTD. GWALIOR REGION, MOTIJHEEL,
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY ANIL SHARMA - ADVOCATE)
Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This order will dispose of W.P.No.5507/2024 and M.P.No.6036/2022 as
the identical and similar issues are involved in both the cases.
2. For the sake of convenience, the facts are taken from
W.P.No.5507/2024.
3. Petitioner - Mahendra Pratap Singh who is working on the post of
Deputy General Manager has preferred the present petition assailing the
issuance of charge-sheet and supplementary charge-sheet and entire disciplinary
proceedings, mainly on the ground that respondent No.4 Mr. Rajeev Kumar
Gupta who is holding look after charge of Chief General Manager, Madhya
Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Ltd., had no authority to
issue the charge-sheet to the petitioner and therefore, the charge-sheet is without
jurisdiction and deserves to be set aside.
4. Petitioner has grievance that charge-sheet has been issued by
incompetent authority, as the officer who has issued the charge-sheet was
holding substantive post of Executive Engineer but was looking after charge of
Chief General Manager.
5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that it is not in dispute that
respondent No.4 - Mr. Rajeev Kumar Gupta is in look after charge of CGM and
the petitioner is posted as Deputy General Manager. The substantive post of
Mr. Rajeev Kumar Gupta is also Deputy General Manager, therefore, as per
disciplinary norms of Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran
Company Ltd Act, he was not authorized to issue any charge-sheet. He further
submits that only the competent authority has power for taking action against
Class-I officer i.e. Managing Director and the powers cannot be delegated to
CGM, in view of the order of delegation dated 09.09.2020 and therefore,
issuance of charge-sheet by respondent No.4 is without jurisdiction and as the
charge-sheet has been issued by incompetent authority, therefore, the same be
quashed.
6. For bolsters his arguments, he relied on the order passed by the co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Arunendra Prasad Maurya Vs.
M.P. Poorv Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Ltd. & others passed in
W.P.No.20351/2020 on 12.12.2020 , wherein the co-ordinate Bench has held
that the Officer in current charge has no power to issue charge-sheet as he is
not holding substantive post. He prays for allowing the petition and quashment
of charge-sheet, order of appointing enquiry officer and supplementary charge-
sheet.
7. Per contra, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent supported
the charge-sheet and submits that the charge-sheet has been issued after due
approval by the Managing Director and therefore, this is not the case where the
charge-sheet has been issued on the basis of alleged delegation of powers. He
further submits that the charge-sheet was put up before MD through proper
procedure and MD approved the same with a direction to proceed ahead.
Therefore, no illegality was committed in issuance of charge-sheet to the
petitioner. He relied on the order passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
the matter of Ramhet Tyagi Vs. State of M.P. & others reported in ILR
(2011) MP 1988 , wherein the co-ordinate Bench after considering the
definition of delegation of powers held that if disciplinary authority issued
direction to pass the orders to any sub-ordinate, the sub-ordinate at the best is
providing assistance to the disciplinary authority in discharging its statutory
power and the principle of delegation or sub delegation will not be attracted in
the aforesaid fact situation and the action will be deemed to be taken by the
disciplinary authority itself. He prays for dismissal of the petition.
8. No other point is raised by learned counsel for the parties.
9. Argument of the parties were heard at length and perused the record.
10. It is not in dispute that competent authority for the purpose of
issuance of charge-sheet to the petitioner is MD and it is also not in dispute that
charge-sheet is not signed by MD and it is signed by CGM. However,
respondent has brought note-sheets on record to demonstrate that charge-sheet
was approved by MD and he has signed relevant note-sheet which shows that
draft charge-sheet or proforma charge-sheet was placed before MD for
consideration and he has approved it. The note-sheet also reflects that formal
decision for initiation of department enquiry against the petitioner was taken by
MD.
11. Counsel for the petitioner also relied on the judgment passed by
Division Bench in W.A.No.72/2022 on 02.05.2022 in the matter of Madhya
Pradesh Poorv Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Ltd. & another Vs.
K.K. Mishra & others, wherein the Division Bench has quashed the charge-
sheet in subsequent disciplinary proceedings on the ground that same was not
issued by MD. However, in that case, after considering the relevant provisions,
t h e charge-sheet was quashed by the Division Bench on the ground that
approval for initiation of disciplinary proceedings and approval to a charge
memorandum was not obtained from the disciplinary authority and therefore,
the charge-sheet was quashed on the ground that same was issued only on the
basis of so called delegation of powers and the same was not issued after
obtaining due approval, therefore, it was held that the departmental enquiry is
bad in law since inception due to defect in charge-sheet.
12. However, in the present matter, the draft charge-sheet was presented
before MD for approval and after due approval, MD issued direction to take
action against the petitioner, therefore, judgment delivered in the matter of
Madhya Pradesh Poorv Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Ltd. (supra) is not
helpful to the petitioner.
13. Similarly, the judgment delivered by the co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in the matter of Arunendra Prasad Maurya (supra), the charge-sheet was
issued without obtaining any approval from the competent disciplinary authority
and after considering the same, it was held that officer in current charge of duty
of the post, who does not hold that substantive post, can discharge an
administrative act but can not issue any charge-sheet by virtue of holding the
current charge and the officer in the current charge is not competent authority to
issue the charge-sheet and perform the duties of disciplinary authority, which
are attached with the post and consequently, charge-sheet issued by the officer
in current charge was quashed. In the present matter officer in look after charge
has simply served the charge-sheet which is issued as per approval of MD who
is competent to issue the charge-sheet and initiate departmental enquiry as per
rules and therefore, the order delivered in the matter of Arunendra Prasad
Maurya (supra) is also not helpful to the petitioner.
14. Co-ordinate Bench in the matter of Ramhet Tyagi (supra) after
considering the judgment passed by Apex Court in the matter of Union of India
Vs. P.K. Roy reported in AIR 1968 SC 850 held that any authority can delegate
its power for the purpose of assistance in discharging its function and nothing
wrong in delegating such powers, if the administrative decision, judgment rests
with the authority.
15. The relevant paragraphs reproduced as under :
20. This matter may be examined from yet another
angle. The principle of delegation of power and
assistance is not foreign to the Principles of
Administrative Law. There is a distinction
between an authority delegating its power to some
authority and employing assistance to help it in
discharging its functions. A power may not be sub-
delegated but there should be no objection in an
authority seeking assistance if the final judgment
rests with it. Whether in a particular situation it is
a case of sub-delegation or merely of employing
assistants would depend upon the degree of control
and supervision exercised by the delegating
authority over the subordinate agency. If the
administrative decision, judgment and control over
the subordinate is clear with the direction as to
how the subordinate authority has to deal with it, it
may be a case not of delegation but of employing
assistants to help the authority in discharging its
statutory power. The Apex Court in the case of
Union of India Vs. P.K. Roy (AIR 1968 SC 850)
held as
"If the administrative authority named in the statute
has and retains in its hands general control over
the activities of the person to whom it has
entrusted in part the exercise of its statutory power
and the control exercised by the administrative
authority is of a substantial degree, there is in the
eye of law no 'delegation' at all and the maxim
"delegatus no potest delegare" does not apply...
In other words, if a statutory authority empowers a
delegate to undertake preparatory work and to take
an initial decision in matters entrusted to it but
retains in its own hands the power to approve or
disapprove the decision after it has been taken, the
decision will be held to have been validly made if
the degree of control maintained by the authority is
close enough for the decision to be regarded as the
authority's own."
21. In P.K. Roy's case (supra), normally the order
is issued by the Assistants but the ultimate power
of decision was of the Competent Authority and,
therefore, it was held that it was a case of
employing assistants and not a case of delegation
of power.
22. In the light of the aforesaid legal discussion,
this Court is of the considered opinion that in the
facts and circumstances of the case, the Collector
has not transferred his authority, but himself took
the decisions/judgment by placing the petitioner
under suspension and merely directed the DEO to
pass the order. Thus, DEO, at the best, is
providing assistance to the Collector is
discharging its statutory power. The principle of
sub-delegation is not attracted in the aforesaid fact
situation and, therefore, the judgments cited by
Shri Brijesh Sharma have no application in the
present matter."
16. As discussed hereinabove, the charge-sheet was issued after due
approval of MD, the same cannot be assailed on the ground that charge-sheet
was issued by respondent No.4 who is having only look after charge of CGM.
Charge-sheet issued to the petitioner appears to be issued by due procedure of
law and therefore, the same is not liable to be quashed. However, the petitioner
may raise the grievance before the enquiry officer and subsequently before
disciplinary authority by raising the issues of questions of competence of
issuance of charge-sheet and if any such objections are raised by the petitioner,
the same shall be considered by the enquiry officer/disciplinary authority in
accordance with law without influenced by this order.
17. At this stage, no case is made out to interfere in the departmental
proceedings.
18. Consequently, petitions fail. Admission declined. Petitions are
dismissed.
(VINAY SARAF)
JUDGE
bj/-
BARKHA
SHARMA
2024.05.2
2 18:28:17
+05'30'
