Madhya Pradesh High Court

Prashant Kumar Khare vs M.P. Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Ltd. ... on 8 April, 2025

Author: Vishal Mishra

Bench: Vishal Mishra

1
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17764
JBP:17764

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 8th OF APRIL, 2025

WRIT PETITION No. 9921 of 2025
PRASHANT KUMAR KHARE
Versus
M.P. POORVA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN LTD. (MPPKVVCL) AND
OTHERS
.............................................................................................................................................................................................

Appearance:
Smt. Shobha Menon - Senior Advocate with Shri Rahul Choubey -
Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Ankit Agrawal - Advocate for respondents.
..............................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................

ORDER

By this writ petition, the challenge is made to the order dated

04.02.2025 (Annexure P/18) on the ground that the charge-sheet sheet has been

issued by the incompetent authority to the petitioner.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that on 03.04.1989, the petitioner

was initially inducted as Technician Apprentice in the respondent-

respondent

department. Thereafter, on 26.06.1991, he was appointed as Junior

Engineer which is a Class III post. In view of the merger merger of MPSEB with

M.P. Power Management Company Limited, the company was pleased to

adopt mutatis mutandis orders/circulars/notifications/regulations issued or

adopted by the MPEB/MPSEB which were in force as on 26.04.2012. The

MPPKVVCL revised delegation ooff powers wherein respondent No.1 is

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17764 JBP:17764

empowered to take disciplinary action against Class I officer whereas

respondents No.3 and 4 are bestowed powers to deal with Class III

employees. Vide order dated 19.07.2024, while while functioning as Junior

Engineer, the petitio petitioner ner was posted as Assistant Engineer on in-

charge/current basis under the control of Superintendent Engineer, Panna.

The respondent No.3 issued a show cause notice dated 20.10.2024 whereby

bald allegations were levelled against the petitioner and the reply repl was

required to be submitted within three days. The petitioner received show

cause notice on 20.10.2024 and he was placed under suspension. It is

submitted that the charge sheet dated 04.02.2025 has been issued by an

incompetent authority.

3. Counsel appearing earing for the petitioner has placed reliance upon

document (Annexure P/4) with deals with delegation of power to the

respondent-Company.

Company. It is argued that as the petitioner is working on the

post of Junior Assistant and in terms of the relevant provision i.e. Part - A

Section - IV, the competent authority for the petitioner will be Executive

Engineer who is having powers to place the petitioner under suspension

and to impose minor penalties. It is argued that Madhya Pradesh Civil

Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 have been

virtually adopted by the respondent-department, respondent department, therefore, in terms of Rule

14(3) of the Rules of 1966, competence of the authority is required to be

seen. It is submitted that in the identical circumstances, a Division Div Bench

of this Court in the case of M.P. Poorv Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17764 JBP:17764

Limited vs K.K. Mishra, reported in 2022(3) MPLJ 166 has considered the

aforesaid proposition proposition. Placing lacing reliance upon the judgment passed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the ccase ase of Union of India and others vs B.V.

Gopinath, reported in (2014) 1 SCC 351 with reference to paragraphs para 9, 14,

22, 24 & 24 as also in the case of Neeraj Holkar vs M.P. Poorv Kshetra

Vidyut Vitran Company Limited and others : Writ Petition No. 16591 of

2022 decided on 23.07.2024, particularly para paragraphs 9 to 14 14, petitioner's

counsel has prayed for setting aside the impugned charge sheet dated

04.02.2025.

4. Counsel appearing for the respondents has vehemently opposed the

contentions. It is submitted th that at it is only a charge sheet which has been

issued to the petitioner, that too by a competent authority. It is argued that

no writ petition is maintainable against a charge sheet or show cause notice

in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court Court in the case

of Union Of India vs Kunisetty Satyanarayana, reported in AIR 2007 SC

906. Issuance of charge sheet can only be interfered in exceptional

circumstances. It is submitted that the charge charge-sheet sheet in question has been

issued by the respondent No No.2-Chief Chief General Manager after taking

approval from the respondent No.1-Managing No.1 Managing Director. Inviting attention

to the document (Annexure P/4) which deals with delegation of power, it is

argued that the Managing Director is having full powers to take

disciplinary inary action against all the officers/officials below the rank of

E.D/C.E. and equivalent. It is further contended that the petitioner is having

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17764 JBP:17764

a remedy of filing an appeal to the Management Committee, therefore, the

writ petition filed directly before this this Court is not maintainable. Insofar as

ground of competence of the authority is concerned, as the order impugned

regarding issuance of charge sheet is affirmed by the Managing Director of

the Company, no relief can be extended to the petitioner. The case law

which has been relied upon by the petitioner's counsel deals with the

situation where there was no approval from the Managing Director of the

Company, therefore, the interference was made. Respondentts' counsel has

prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. At the stage of issuance of charge-sheet, sheet, the disciplinary authority

was under no obligation to assign reasons and detailed reasons why he

intends to issue a charge charge-sheet. The following allegations are made ma against

the petitioner in the charge sheet :

ी शांत कु मार खरे , किन अिभयंता (एस.टी.एम. एस.टी.सी.) संभाग प ा म सहायक अिभयंता (चा. .) के पद पर दनाक 02.08.2024 से दनांक 19.09.2024 तक एवं (संचा/संधा) उपसंभाग, प ा म सहायक अिभयंता (चा. .) के पद पर दनांक 20.09.2024 से दनांक 06.11.2024 तक पद थ रहे है। उ पद थापना दौरान ी शांत कु मार खरे ारा म. म . िसिवल सेवा (अचारण) ( िनयम का उ लघन कया गया। िजसके प र े य म ी शांत खरे के िव िन आरोप अिधरोिपत कये जाते ह:- ह आरोप मांक-1 कायपालन अिभयंता (एस.टी.एम. एस.टी.सी.) संभाग, प ा कायालय म पद थगी के दौरान ी शांत खरे दनांक 06.09.2024 को िबना कसी सूचना के मु यालय से अनुपि थत रहे और उनके ारा अपनी ई ई.आर.पी. आई.डीडी. भी बंद कर दी गई, िजससे (एसटीएम-एसटीसी) प ा संभाग के मह वपूण काय भािवत ए। त कािलक व था बनाये रखने एवं काय को सुचा प से सचािलत करने हेतु कायपालन अिभयंता (एस.टी.एम. एस.टी.सी.) प ा ारा वयं क आई.डी. का योग कया गया। इस कार ी शांत खरे ारा संभागीय

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17764 JBP:17764

कायालय के अित महा वपूण काय म वधान उ प कर आचरण िनयम का उ लंघन कया गया।

आरोप मांक-2 ी शांत कु मार खरे क संचालन एवं संधारण उपसंभागाग, प ा म पद थी के दौरान असफल ांसफामर क रािश जमा एवं पा होने के उपरांत भी उसे बदलने क व था नह क गयी। त संबध ं म कायपालन अिभयंता (सं संचा/सं ा धा) प ा, ारा िविभ प के मा यम से ांसफामर को बदलने हेतु प ाचार कया गया, परं तु ी शांत खरे ारा त संबंध म कोई कायवाही नह क गई,गई अिपतु गूगलमीट के दौरान उ अिधकारी से अ वहा रक तरीके से वातालाप कया गया। इस कार ी शात खरे सतत् िव त ु व था बनाये रखने हेतु साथक यास नह कर लापरवाही बरती गयी और वे छाचा रता का प रचय दया गया।

आरोप मांक-3 दनांक 19.10.2024 को कै पग हाउस प ा म बैठक के दौरान सामा य चचा के समय ी शांत खरे ारा कायपालन अिभयंता (संचा/संघा) प ा से अनगल वातालाप कर धमक भरे श दो का योग कया गया और कायपालन अिभयंता (संचा/संधा) प ा ारा ेिषत प को न कया गया। ी शांत खरे ारा ा बैठक के दौरान व र अिधका रय से अनुशासनहीनता पूवक वहार कया एवं कायालयीन द तावेज को न कया गया। इस कार ी शांत खरे ारा बैठक म अवांछनीय /अशां अशांितपूण वातावरण िन मत कर आचरण िनयम का उ लंघन कया गया।

( बंध संचालक ारा अनुमो दत)

7. It is trite that the scope of interference by this Court in disciplinary

matters at the stage of issuance of charge sheet in exercise of its power of

judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution is very limited and

such matters should not be ordinarily interfered with at the threshold

stage. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court

can quash a charge-sheet sheet or show show-cause cause notice if it is found to be wholly

without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal.

However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter.

8. In the present case, the admitted position being issuance of charge

sheet to the petitioner by Chief General Manager of the respondent-

respondent

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17764 JBP:17764

company after taking approval approval from the Managing Director which is

reflected from document (Annexure P/18). The delegation of power as is

reflected from the document (Annexure P/4) indicates as under :

PART - A SECTION - IV DISCIPLINARY ACTION

S.No. Nature of powers Authority Limit 1 Punishment of i) EE a) Powers of suspension establishment and minor penalty for all class III employees

b) Full powers for class IV employees

ii) Addl. CE/SE Full powers for class III / (in charge of IV employees under circle) administrative control

iii) Regional a) Powers of suspension ED/CE/CE and minor penalty for class (Stores) I officer of the rank of EE and equivalent

b) Full powers in respect of officer/officials up to the rank of A.E. and equivalent class II officer

iv) Addl. a) Full powers for class III Secy./HR Head & IV employees posted in Corporate office (Except JEs)

b) Full powers for all class II officers and JEs posted in Corporate office with approval of MD

v) M.D. a) Full powers for Suspension and minor penalty for class I officers of the rank of E.D. / C.E. or equivalent

b) Full powers for all officers / officials below the rank of ED/CE and equivalent

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17764 JBP:17764

9. From perusal of aforesaid document, it is clear that the 'Authority'

mentioned under column 'v' is M.D. and under the column 'Limit', it is

pointed out that he is having full powers for all officers/officials below the

rank of ED/CE and equivalent. This goes to show that Managing Director

is having powers to issue a charge sheet to the employee like like petitioner. As

argued by the petitioner's counsel that it is only Executive Engineer who is

competent authority cannot be entertained for the reasons that column 'v' of

delegation of power to take disciplinary action as contained in Part A of

Section IV, M.D. is having ample powers to take disciplinary action against

all officers/officials below the rank of ED/CE and equivalent.

10. In the case of Ministry of Defence vs Prabhash Chandra Mirdha,

reported in (2012) 11 SCC 565, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has h held as

follows :

"10. Ordinarily a writ application does not lie against a charge charge-

sheet or show--cause cause notice for the reason that it does not give rise to any cause of action. It does not amount to an adverse order which affects the right of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction/competence to do so. A writ lies when some right of a party is infringed. In fact, charge charge-sheet sheet does not infringe the right of a party. It is only when a final order imposing the punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, it may have a grievance and cause of action. Thus, a charge-sheet sheet or show show-cause cause notice in disciplinary proceedings should not ordinarily be quashed by the court. (Vide State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma (1987) 2 SCC 179, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh (1996) 1 SCC 327, Ulagappa v. Commr. (2001) 10 SCC 639, Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse (2004) 3 SCC 440 and Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana (2006) 12 SCC 28 28).

11. In State te of Orissa v. Sangram Keshari Misra (2010) 13 SCC 311, this Court held that normally a charge-sheet charge sheet is not quashed prior to the conducting of the enquiry on the ground that the facts stated in the charge are erroneous for the reason that to determine

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17764 JBP:17764

correctness rectness or truth of the charge is the function of the disciplinary authority. (See also Union of India v. Upendra Singh (1994) 3 SCC

12. Thus, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that the charge-sheet charge cannot generally be a subject-matter atter of challenge as it does not adversely affect the rights of the delinquent unless it is established that the same has been issued by an authority not competent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings. Neither the disciplinary proceedings nor the char charge-sheet sheet be quashed at an initial stage as it would be a premature stage to deal with the issues. Proceedings are not liable to be quashed on the grounds that proceedings had been initiated at a belated stage or could not be concluded in a reasonable perio period d unless the delay creates prejudice to the delinquent employee. Gravity of alleged misconduct is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration while quashing the proceedings."

proceedings.

11. When the facts of the present case is tested on the anvil of the

aforesaid dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court coupled with the fact that

M.D. is the competent authority and granted approval for issuance of

charge sheet against the petitioner, no relief can be extended.

12. The petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.. No order as to

costs.

(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE