Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rakesh Sharma vs M.P. Madhya Keshtra Vidhyut Vitaran Co. on 16 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26531
1 WP-29696-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 16 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 29696 of 2024
RAKESH SHARMA
Versus
M.P. MADHYA KESHTRA VIDHYUT VITARAN CO. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Jai Prakash Kushwah - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Nitin Goyal- Advocate for the respondents.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the memo dated
17.09.2024 (Annexure P/1) whereby the respondent no.3 has issued a charge-sheet
to the petitioner. The challenge has been made primarily on the ground that the
respondent no.3 who is substantively holding the post of Deputy General Manager
(City Division East), is only holding the current charge of the post of General
Manager and, therefore, was not competent to issue the impugned charge-sheet.
2 . The facts necessary decision of this case are that the petitioner is
substantively holding the post of Junior Engineer (Class-III post) and is presently
posted as Manager (current charge), Mahalgaon Zone, Gwalior. He has been
served a charge-sheet vide memo, dated 27.09.2024, (Annexure P/1) by the
respondent no.3.
3 . Challenging the impugned charge-sheet, learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the respondent no.3, namely Mr. Nitin Mangalik, is
substantively holding the post of Deputy General Manager and has been given
current charge of the post of General Manager. It is his submission that for
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26531
2 WP-29696-2024
purposes of Class-III employees, the General Manager is the disciplinary
authority. He submitted that since the respondent no.3 is not substantively holding
the post of General Manager but is only in current charge of the said post, he is
not competent to issue the impugned charge-sheet. He relied upon the order
passed by this Court in the case of Arunendra Prasad Maurya Vs. Madhya
Pradesh Poorv Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. & Ors. (W.P. No.20351 of
2020) as also Vinod Patil Vs. M.P. Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. &
Ors. (W.P. No.11016 of 2024).
4. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents supported the impugned
action of the respondent no.3 and submitted that the respondent no.3 was
competent to issue the charge-sheet in view of order, dated 24.10.2024,
(Annexure R/1) whereby the Officers in current charge of higher post have been
authorized to take disciplinary action against the subordinate employees. He
further submitted that the issue as to whether an Officer holding the current charge
of the post can issue charge-sheet, has been answered in affirmative by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shailendra Kushwah Vs. Madhya
Pradesh Purva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. & Ors. (W.P. No.4164 of
2024). He thus prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. Considered the arguments and perused the record.
6. Before adverting to the facts of the case, the relevant rules providing for
issuance of charge-sheet needs to be examined. Rule 14(3)(c) of The Madhya
Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 provides
for issuance of charge-sheet. It provides that where it is proposed to hold an
enquiry against a Government servant, the disciplinary authority shall draw or
caused to be drawn up the substance of the imputation of misconduct or
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26531
3 WP-29696-2024
misbehaviour into definite and distinct articles of charge. From reading of the
aforesaid provision, it becomes evident that the charge-sheet is necessarily
required to be issued by disciplinary authority. Thus, the charge-sheet cannot be
quashed merely on the ground that it has not been issued by the disciplinary
authority.
7 . From the gradation list filed by the petitioner as Annexure P/3, it is
gathered that Mr. Nitin Mangalik is substantively holding the post of Deputy
General Manager and has been given current charge of the post of General
Manager. From the aforesaid gradation list, it is also seen that all the incumbents
named therein are in the current charge of the higher post. This is precisely
because of the issue of promotions being pending before the Apex Court in the
case of State of M.P. Vs. R.B. Rai & others in SLP(C) No.13954/2016. Meaning
thereby, the respondent no.3 has been given current charge of the post of General
Manager not as a stop gap arrangement.
8. Recently, the Coordinate Bench of this Court had occasion to consider
this issue in the case of Shailendra Kushwah (supra). After referring to various
Supreme Court judgments as also judgment rendered in the case of Arunendra
Prasad Maurya (supra), this Court in paragraph 13 & 14 held as under;
13. The order of coordinate Bench relied by the learned counsel
for the petitioner in WP No.20351/2020 does not take into
account the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Gopalji Khanna Vs. Allahabad Bank and others (1996)3 SCC 538
as well as the judgement of Division Bench of this Court, wherein
it has been clearly held that a person holding lower post but
having entrusted with regular charge of higher post can exercising
powers of disciplinary authority. It appears that both these orders
were not placed before the coordinate Bench. Thus, this Court
finds itself bound by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
as well as that of the Division Bench.
14. Consequently, holding that Shri R.K. Sthapak was competent
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26531
4 WP-29696-2024
to issue the charge sheet to the petitioner, the charge sheet
Annex.P/2 and consequential order Annex.P/1 are upheld, the
petition is dismissed.
9. The judgment being relied upon by petitioner's counsel rendered in the
case of Arunendra Prasad Maurya (supra) is thus distinguished by the Coordinate
Bench in the case of Shailendra Kushwah (supra). Further, since the judgment
rendered in the case of Vinod Patil (supra) is primarily based upon the judgment
in the case of Arunendra Prasad Maurya (supra), the same also stands
distinguished by virtue of judgment in the case of Shailendra Kushwah (supra).
10. In view of the discussion made above, the only objection raised by the
petitioner challenging the impugned charge-sheet is found to be sustainable in
law. It is held that the respondent no.3 was competent to issue impugned charge-
sheet to the petitioner.
11. Consequently, the petition fails and is dismissed.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
vpn/-
