[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Madhurendra Prasad vs Chairman Cum Managing Director, Bihar ... on 6 January, 2026
Author: Anil Kumar Sinha
Bench: Anil Kumar Sinha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 314 of 2023
======================================================
Madhurendra Prasad son of Late Ramchandra Rawat, resident of Village-
Koiriaya Tola, Sona Lal Gali, Raksaul, P.S.- Raksaul, District- East
Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Chairman cum Managing Director, Bihar State Power (Holding) Co. Ltd.
having its office at Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna- 800001.
2. South Bihar Power Distribution Co. Ltd. through its Managing Director
having its office at Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna- 800001.
3. Managing Director, South Bihar Power Distribution Co. Ltd. through its
Managing Director having its office at Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna-
800001.
4. General Manager (HR and Admn), South Bihar Power Distribution Co. Ltd.
through its Managing Director having its office at Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey
Road, Patna- 800001.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr.Vaibhava Veer Shanker
Mr. Sameer Sawarn
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dharmeshwar Mishra, Sr. Adv.
Mr, Indrajeet Bhushan
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
C.A.V.
Date : 06-01-2026
The present writ application has been filed for
quashing the resolution, dated 12.08.2014, issued, by the General
Manager (HR & Administration), South Bihar Power Distribution
Company Limited, Patna, under Memo No. 1530, whereby
departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and
for quashing the resolution/Order No. 664, dated 13.05.2016, by
Patna High Court CWJC No.314 of 2023 dt.06-01-2026
2/18
which the punishment of withholding two annual increments with
cumulative effect was imposed against the petitioner. The
petitioner has further prayed for quashing resolution no. 267, dated
14.02.2017
, whereby the earlier punishment was modified to the
extent of withholding of one annual increment with non-
cumulative effect, as well as for quashing the letter no. 647, dated
22.09.2022, whereby the petitioner was informed that his review
application has been rejected.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the petitioner, in
brief, is that he was initially appointed as Junior Electrical
Engineer, vide Notification No. 1097, dated 12.11.1999, issued by
the Joint Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter
referred as 'BSEB'). Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of
Assistant Electrical Engineer on 17.09.2007. Thereafter, the
petitioner was transferred from the Electric Supply Sub-Division,
Katihar (Urban) to the Electric Supply Sub-Division, Rajgir with
effect from 25.10.2012. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner joined at
Rajgir as Assistant Electrical Engineer.
3. With the enactment of the Electricity Act, 2003, the
Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 stood repealed and by virtue of
Section 172 thereof, the BSEB ceased to exist. In exercise of
powers under Section 132 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the State
Patna High Court CWJC No.314 of 2023 dt.06-01-2026
Government issued a Notification, dated 30.10.2012, restructuring
the erstwhile BSEB into the Bihar State Power Holding Company
Limited (in short, 'BSPHCL') and its four subsidiary companies,
including the South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited
(in short, 'SBPDCL').
4. In terms of Section 133 of the Electricity Act, 2003,
the services of all employees of the erstwhile BSEB were initially
transferred to BSPHCL on the same terms and conditions and
thereafter, in accordance with the said notification, employees
were allocated to the respective subsidiary companies.
5. Clause 6 of the Notification deals with transfer of
persons and Schedule F deals with detailed scheme including the
terms and conditions for transfer of the employees in transmission,
generation, distribution and common services. The petitioner,
being posted at Rajgir, which is a distribution division, became an
employee of the SBPDCL with effect from 01.11.2012.
6. The SBPDCL is governed by its Board of Directors,
one of whom is the Managing Director (MD), who functions as the
Chief Executive and Administrative Head of the Company and
thereby became the employer of the petitioner in place of the
BSEB. The field undertakings of the company are headed by the
General Manager -cum- Chief Engineer.
Patna High Court CWJC No.314 of 2023 dt.06-01-2026
7. Prior to the posting of the petitioner at Rajgir on
25.10.2012, a tender for appointment of a franchisee for collection
of electricity charges/bills from consumers was issued by the
erstwhile BSEB. Pursuant thereto, M/s Mithilesh Enterprises was
selected as the franchisee and a Letter of Intent, under Memo No.
3281, dated 28.08.2012, was issued by the Electrical
Superintending Engineer, Biharsharif.
8. In terms of Clause 4 of the Letter of Intent, dated
28.08.2012, the Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply
Division, Rajgir, was designated as the Work Incharge for
operation of the contract. Further, Clause 4.5 (B) of the agreement
executed between the franchisee and the Electrical Superintending
Engineer, Biharsharif, stipulated that the BSEB may, at any time
during the subsistence of the agreement, authorize any person(s) to
inspect, verify and audit the performance, records and accounts of
the franchisee.
9. The contract with the said franchisee was for a period
of three years. However, during the subsistence of the contract, the
franchisee defaulted in depositing the amount collected from the
consumers. Such irregularities came to light upon scrutiny of the
accounts for the period from 01.10.2012 to 30.11.2013, which
ultimately led to termination of the contract with the franchisee.
Patna High Court CWJC No.314 of 2023 dt.06-01-2026
Subsequent audit of accounts conducted for the period from
01.08.2012 to 30.11.2013 further revealed that the franchisee,
during the contract period as well as even after termination of the
agreement, had collected money from consumers, but failed to
deposit the same, thereby defalcating an amount exceeding to
₹28,15,898/-.
10. Subsequently, a committee was constituted by the
Electrical Executive Engineer, Rajgir, vide office order, dated
13.01.2014 to examine the relevant records and for the first time,
the petitioner was included as a member of the committee. Upon
examination, the committee found a short deposit of ₹24,91,848/-.
Acting in the capacity of a member of the committee, the
petitioner forwarded the inspection report to the Electrical
Executive Engineer, Rajgir, vide letter no. 30, dated 29.01.2014.
11. However, all of a sudden, on 12.08.2014, the
General Manager (HR & Administration), SBPDCL, issued Memo
No. 1530, dated 12.08.2014, initiating departmental proceeding
against the petitioner on the allegation that there was reason to
believe that the petitioner was prima facie guilty of gross
misconduct and negligence of duty, as specified in the charge
sheet. The petitioner was directed to submit his written statement
of defence within fifteen days from the date of issuance of the said
Patna High Court CWJC No.314 of 2023 dt.06-01-2026
memo. Sri Rishi Prasad, Chief Engineer, SBPDCL, was appointed
as the Enquiry Officer to conduct the departmental proceeding.
12. After conclusion of the departmental proceeding, the
Enquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report on 20.11.2014,
wherein it has categorically been concluded that although five
charges were levelled against the petitioner, no charge of financial
embezzlement in collusion with the franchisee was proved against
him. However, the petitioner was held guilty of negligence of duty
and a second show-cause notice on 08.01.2015 was issued by the
General Manager (HR & Administration), calling upon the
petitioner to explain as to why he should not be punished.
13. In response to the second show-cause notice, the
petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 09.06.2015, denying all the
charges levelled against him. However, without properly
considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in a
mechanical manner, the General Manager (HR & Administration)
imposed the punishment of withholding of two annual increments
with cumulative effect, which was communicated to the petitioner,
vide Memo No. 665 dated 13.05.2016.
14. Aggrieved by the punishment order, the petitioner
preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, i.e. the
Chairman -cum- Managing Director, BSPHCL, Patna. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.314 of 2023 dt.06-01-2026
appellate authority, vide order, dated 05.02.2017 modified the
punishment from withholding of two annual increments with
cumulative effect to withholding of one increment with non-
cumulative effect.
15. Aggrieved by the order, dated 05.02.2017, the
petitioner preferred a review application on 13.05.2022 before the
Chairman -cum- Managing Director, BSPHCL; however, the same
was rejected by the competent authority on 14.02.2017 as not
maintainable.
16. During the pendency of review application, the
petitioner approached this Hon'ble Court by filing CWJC No.
12243 of 2022, which was disposed vide order, dated 30.09.2022,
with liberty to the petitioner to assail the order passed in the
review application by way of a fresh writ petition.
17. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner argued that the very initiation of the departmental
proceeding against the petitioner is ex facie illegal, arbitrary and
without jurisdiction. Drawing the attention of this Court to the
Office Order, dated 11.03.2015, issued under the signature of Mr.
Binod Kumar, General Manager (HR & Administration), it has
been submitted that the said letter demonstrates that pursuant to
the decision taken by the Board of Directors, the General Manager
Patna High Court CWJC No.314 of 2023 dt.06-01-2026
(HR & Administration), SBPDCL, was authorized to exercise the
powers in accordance with the delegation of powers schedule
issued by BSPHCL, till the posting/appointment of the Executive
Director (HR & Administration) in SBPDCL.
18. Therefore, the submission is that the said delegation
of powers came into force from 11.03.2015; whereas the
departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on
12.08.2014. Thus, on the date of initiation of the departmental
proceeding, the General Manager (HR & Administration), was not
the appointing authority or the disciplinary authority of the
petitioner.
19. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that in view
of the statutory scheme governing the service conditions, the
Managing Director, subject to delegation of powers by the Board
of Directors of SBPDCL, was the competent appointing and
disciplinary authority of the petitioner.
20. The attention was drawn to the resolution of the
Board of Directors of the SBPDCL, notified vide Order No. 164,
dated 26.06.2013, whereby the existing delegation of powers to
award major and minor punishments to officers of the rank of
Assistant Engineer/Electrical Engineer and equivalent was
amended from General Manager -cum- Chief Engineer of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.314 of 2023 dt.06-01-2026
concerned area/project and such powers were vested in the
Managing Director/Executive Director (HR). The entire
departmental proceeding, including issuance of the charge sheet,
second show cause notice and the order of punishment, was
undertaken by the General Manager (HR & Administration)
without any authority under the law.
21. Referring to the provisions contained in Rule 16 of
Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal)
Rules, 2005 (in short, '2005 Rules'), learned Senior Counsel
contended that the appointing authority/disciplinary authority of
the petitioner is the Managing Director, as such, the action of the
General Manager (HR & Administration) regarding initiation of
departmental proceeding against the petitioner was clearly
untenable in the eyes of law.
22. The memo of charges issued against the petitioner
was never approved by the appointing or disciplinary authority and
the power was never delegated by the appointing or disciplinary
authority to the General Manager (HR & Administration).
Therefore, the very initiation of departmental proceeding is
vitiated as illegal. He next submits that the charges levelled against
the petitioner are wholly unsustainable on merits based on no
evidence. The proceeding was initiated without taking any
Patna High Court CWJC No.314 of 2023 dt.06-01-2026
explanation or show cause from the petitioner before initiation of
the departmental proceeding and service of memo of charge.
23. It is an undisputed fact that the agreement with the
BSPHCL and the franchisee and the Letter of Intent were executed
much prior to the posting of the petitioner at Rajgir and under the
express terms thereof, the Electrical Executive Engineer was
designated as the Work In-Charge for the operation and
supervision of the contract. The petitioner was never authorized,
either under the agreement or by any office order to inspect, audit,
verify accounts or supervise the collections made by the
franchisee. The role of the petitioner arose at a later stage when he
was included as a member of the committee constituted on
13.01.2014, after the defalcation had already taken place and his
role was limited to forwarding the report of the committee to the
competent authority. At no stage, any specific act of omission
attributable to the petitioner was identified or proved showing the
misconduct or negligence done by the petitioner nor was any such
charge, supported by cogent documentary or oral evidence, was
laid during the departmental proceedings.
24. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner relied on
the decisions of the Supreme Court, in the cases of (i) Union of
India v. B.V Gopinath, reported in (2014) 1 SCC 351; (ii) State
Patna High Court CWJC No.314 of 2023 dt.06-01-2026
of Tamil Nadu v. Pramod Kumar, reported in (2018) 17 SCC
677; (iii) Sunny Abraham v. Union of India, reported in (2021)
20 SCC 12; (iv) Hukumchand Shyam Lal v. Union of India
(AIR 1976 SC 789) and also on the decisions of this Court, in the
cases of Manikant Pathak v. The State of Bihar, reported in
1997 (1) PLJR 664 (FB); and Vijay Kumar Mathur v.
SBPDCL, reported in 2023 (2) PLJR 668.
25. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondents submits that the writ petition is wholly
misconceived and devoid of any merit. It has been argued that the
departmental proceeding against the petitioner was initiated
strictly in accordance with law on the basis of serious charges of
negligence of duty, which resulted in substantial financial loss to
the Company. The proceeding was initiated by the competent
appointing -cum- disciplinary authority, i.e. the Managing
Director, SBPDCL, vide Resolution No. 1529. dated 12.08.2014.
26. The Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the
departmental proceeding. The petitioner was afforded full
opportunity to participate in the enquiry and upon completion of
the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a detailed report, dated
20.11.2014, wherein all five charges levelled against the petitioner
were found proved on the basis of evidence on record. Pursuant to
Patna High Court CWJC No.314 of 2023 dt.06-01-2026
the enquiry report, a second show cause notice was issued to the
petitioner, calling upon him to explain as to why punishment
should not be imposed. The petitioner submitted his reply, which
was duly considered by the disciplinary authority. Since the
petitioner failed to rebut the findings of the Enquiry Officer by any
cogent explanation or documentary evidence, the disciplinary
authority, after due application of mind, imposed the punishment
of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect by a
reasoned order, dated 13.05.2016. The punishment imposed was
proportionate to the gravity of misconduct established in the
enquiry.
27. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the
petitioner availed the statutory remedy of appeal. The appellate
authority, i.e., the Chairman -cum- Managing Director, BSPHCL,
after affording the petitioner personal hearing and considering the
entire record, passed a detailed and speaking order. Taking a
balanced and lenient view of the subsequent conduct of the
petitioner, the appellate authority modified the punishment to
stoppage of one annual increment with non-cumulative effect, vide
Resolution No. 267, dated 14.02.2017, thereby demonstrating
fairness, reasonableness and judicious exercise of power.
Patna High Court CWJC No.314 of 2023 dt.06-01-2026
28. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that prior to
filing the present writ petition, the petitioner had already
approached this Hon'ble Court by filing CWJC No. 12243 of
2022, wherein he had specifically undertaken to challenge only the
order passed in the review application by filing a fresh writ
petition. On the basis of such undertaking, the said writ petition
was disposed of by order, dated 30.09.2022.
29. Accordingly, the petitioner had confined his
grievance solely to the order passed in the review application and
not to the earlier stages of the disciplinary proceeding. As such, the
present writ application is not maintainable.
30. Learned Senior Counsel next argued that at no stage
of the departmental enquiry nor during the appellate or review
proceedings, did the petitioner raise any objection with regard to
the competence or authority of the General Manager (HR &
Administration). Having consciously participated in the
proceedings at all stages without any protest or objection, the
petitioner is now estopped from raising such technical objections
at a belated stage. Accordingly, the writ petition is liable to be
dismissed on this ground alone.
Patna High Court CWJC No.314 of 2023 dt.06-01-2026
31. I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the parties
and have gone through the material available on records, including
the impugned orders.
32. Upon careful consideration of the pleadings,
documents available on record and rival submissions advanced by
the parties, this Court finds that the foundational issue in the
present case is as to whether the departmental proceeding was
initiated by the authority having jurisdiction?
33. From perusal of records, particularly the order, dated
26.06.2013, it appears that powers to award major and minor
punishments to officers of the rank of Assistant Electrical Engineer
stood vested in the Managing Director/Executive Director (HR).
By the office order, dated 11.03.2015, the General Manager (HR &
Administration) was authorized to exercise the powers as given in
the schedule of delegation and was admittedly issued subsequent
to initiation of the proceeding against the petitioner and was
temporary in nature, subject to posting/appointment of Executive
Director (HR). The impugned Memo No. 1530, dated 12.08.2014,
initiating the departmental proceeding was started from service of
memo of charge. The memo of charge was issued on 11.08.2014,
under the signature of the General Manager (HR &
Administration).
Patna High Court CWJC No.314 of 2023 dt.06-01-2026
34. The provisions, contained under Rule 16 (1) of the
2005 Rules, prescribes that the Government or appointing
authority or any authority to which the appointing authority is
subordinate or any other authority empowered by the general or
special order of the Government may institute a departmental
proceeding against any Government servant.
35. The issue, as raised before this Court, has been
elaborately dealt with by a Bench of this Court, in the case of
Uday Pratap Singh vs. The State of Bihar and Others, reported
in 2017 (4) PLJR 195, wherein this Court, taking note of the
relevant provisions of Rule 16 (1) of the 2005 Rules, has
summarized that a disciplinary proceeding can only be initiated by
an authority competent to do so.
36. Rule 2 (f) of the 2005 Rules, defines the appointing
authority and inter alia under sub-Rule (iii) includes the authority
which appointed the Government servant to such Service. The
appointing authority would be the disciplinary authority, as per
Rule 2 (j) of the 2005 Rules.
37. In the present case, the very decision to initiate the
departmental proceeding against the petitioner was taken by the
General Manager (HR & Administration). In paragraph 9 of the
second supplementary counter affidavit, the respondents have
Patna High Court CWJC No.314 of 2023 dt.06-01-2026
expressly admitted that the Managing Director is the Disciplinary
Authority in respect of the petitioner. The memo of charge, the
second show-cause notice and the final order imposing major
punishment, have all been issued by the General Manager (HR &
Administration). Though, it has been argued that the order
appointing the Enquiry Officer was issued under the direction of
the Managing Director, but the respondents have failed to place on
record any resolution, notification, delegation order to show that
the General Manager (HR & Administration) was authorized to
exercise the powers of the appointing/disciplinary authority.
38. Admittedly, in the memo of charge, there is no
indication that the same was served under the direction of the
Managing Director, i.e. the Appointing Authority. The memo of
charge does not bear any approval of the appointing/disciplinary
authority, thereby clearly indicating that the memo of charge was
issued without the approval of the competent authority.
39. In the case of B. V. Gopinath (supra), the Supreme
Court has held that the charge sheet/charge memo having not been
approved by the disciplinary authority would be non est in the eyes
of law. The said proposition has been reiterated by the Supreme
Court, in the cases of Pramod Kumar, IPS (supra) and Sunny
Abraham (supra).
Patna High Court CWJC No.314 of 2023 dt.06-01-2026
40. Having considered the aforesaid discussion, on facts
as well as on law, in the opinion of this Court, the very initiation of
the disciplinary proceeding by the authority other than the
appointing authority without any delegation of power in his
favour, it is difficult to accept the submission advanced on behalf
of the respondents that the General Manager (HR &
Administration) was the competent authority to initiate the
departmental proceeding against the petitioner. This Court,
therefore, accepts the contention of the petitioner that the
impugned orders, having been issued by an authority lacking
jurisdiction, are wholly without authority of law. The respondents
have failed to bring on record any contemporaneous or prior
document, resolution, notification or order to demonstrate that the
Managing Director had lawfully delegated his disciplinary powers
to the General Manager (HR & Administration).
41. The contention of the respondents that the issue of
incompetence of the General Manager (HR & Administration)
while initiating departmental proceeding was not raised by the
petitioner during the departmental proceeding and also before the
Appellate Authority cannot be accepted for the simple reason that
point of jurisdiction goes to the root of the case and since it is the
legal point, as such, can be raised at any stage of the proceeding.
Patna High Court CWJC No.314 of 2023 dt.06-01-2026
42. In the circumstances, the very initiation of the
departmental proceeding and all consequential actions stand
vitiated.
43. Accordingly, Resolution No. 1530, dated
12.08.2014, initiating departmental proceeding against the
petitioner, Resolution No. 664, dated 13.05.2016, imposing
punishment of withholding two increments with cumulative effect,
Resolution No. 267, dated 14.02.2017, modifying the punishment,
and Communication Letter No. 647 dated 22.09.2022 rejecting the
review application are hereby quashed.
44. The respondents are directed to pay the entire
amount, if any, deducted in lieu of punishment awarded to the
petitioner within a period of one month from today.
45. In the result, this writ application is allowed.
46. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.)
Prabhakar Anand/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 31-10-2025
Uploading Date 06-01-2026
Transmission Date N/A
