Patna High Court

Amit Kumar AgrawalversusBHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED,

Decided: 4 May 2026
Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: ANSHUMAN

Holding

The Court held that while the High Court has jurisdiction, the orders are appealable under Rule 32 of the BHEL CDA Rules, 1975 and the petitioner must pursue the statutory appeal; the writ petition is dismissed.

Summary

The petitioner, Amit Kumar Agrawal, filed a writ petition challenging his suspension and the non‑payment of subsistence allowance by Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd (BHEL) on the ground that the orders dated 18‑09‑2024 and 09‑12‑2024 violated Rule 20(3) and Rule 5(12) of the BHEL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal (CDA) Rules, 1975 and were passed without hearing. The respondents contended that the petition was premature, that the High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction, and that the petitioner should have pursued the statutory appeal under Rule 32 of the CDA Rules. The Court examined earlier judgments, including the 2013 writ, the 2023 LPA and the 2024 Supreme Court decision, and held that the territorial jurisdiction issue had already been decided in favour of the petitioner. However, the Court found that both the suspension order and the subsequent final order are appealable under Rule 32, and therefore the petitioner must seek relief through the statutory appellate forum. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with a direction that any delay in filing the appeal may be condoned by the appellate authority.

Issues considered

Whether the Patna High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.
Whether the orders of suspension and non‑payment of subsistence allowance are appealable under Rule 32 of the BHEL CDA Rules, 1975, thereby invoking the doctrine of alternative remedy.
Whether the petitioner is barred from approaching the court while a statutory appeal is available.

Subjects

territorial jurisdiction
natural justice
suspension
appealability
BHEL CDA Rules 1975
certiorari
mandamus
alternative remedy

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.219 of 2025
======================================================
Amit Kumar Agrawal son of Sri Arun Kumar Maitin, resident of 69, Gandhi
Chowk, K.P. Road, Gaya-823001. Bihar.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED, through its Chairman- cum-
Managing Director, BHEL Bhawan, Siri Fort, New Delhi - 110049.
2. Executive Director, H.E.P.,BHEL. Bhopal-462022.
3. General Manager (Finance), H.E.P. BHEL, Bhopal - 162022.
4. AGM (Finance) and Disciplinary Authority, H.E.P..BHEL, Bhopal-462022.
5. AGM (Finance) and Inquiry Authority, H.E.P., BHEL, Bhopal-462022.

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Amit Kumar Agrawal (In Person)
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Shailesh Kumar, Adv.
Mr.S. Alam. Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER

4 04-05-2026 Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Agrawal (the petitioner) in

person and learned counsel for the State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed with the

following reliefs:-

i. To issue an appropriate
writ/order/direction in the nature of Certiorari for
quashing the impugned email order dated 09-12-
2024 (as contained in Annexure P/12) passed by
Respondent No. 4, whereby non-payment of
subsistence allowance for not meeting the terms
and conditions of impugned order dated 18-09-
2024 (as contained in Annexure-P/4). was passed
by same Respondent No. 4.
Patna High Court CWJC No.219 of 2025(4) dt.04-05-2026
2/13

ii. To issue an appropriate
writ/order/direction in the nature of Certiorari for
quashing the impugned order dated 18-09-2024
passed by Respondent No. 4 whereby the petitioner
has been suspended illegally against the rule 20(3)
of BHEL CDA rules 1975, (as contained in
Annexure P/14) without giving any opportunity of
being heard and also without any reason being
recorded thereof by Respondent No.4.
iii. To issue an appropriate writ/order/
direction in the nature of Certiorari for quashing
the impugned order dated 18.09.2024 passed by
Respondent No. 4 whereby the intervening period
has been declared dies non violating the principle
of natural justice as well as rule 20(3) of BHEL
CDA rules 1975. (as contained in Annexure P/14)
without giving opportunity of being heard and
without any reason being recorded thereof by
Respondent No. 4.
iv. To issue an appropriate
writ/order/direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding the Respondent No. 1 to 3 to initiate
the departmental proceeding against Respondent
No 4 and Respondent No 5 under Rule 5(24) of
BHEL CDA Rules 1975 for violating Rule 20(3)
BHEL CDA Rules 1975 in suspending the
petitioner.
v. To issue an appropriate
writ/order/direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding the Respondents to make the payment
Patna High Court CWJC No.219 of 2025(4) dt.04-05-2026
3/13

of subsistence allowance with such interest and
with/without such penalty as the Hon'ble Court
may decide.
3. During pendency of the writ petition, the

respondents appeared and filed an I.A. No.2 of 2026 raising

preliminary objection for challenging the maintainability of the

writ petition on the ground of lacking of territorial jurisdiction

and non-availing the statutory provision of appeals and review

under Rules 32 and 33 of the BHEL Conduct, Discipline and

Appeal (CDA) Rules, 1975.

4. Counsel for the respondents submits that the

present writ petition is pre-mature and liable to be dismissed on

the lack of jurisdiction as well as on the ground of non-availing

the statutory provision of appeals and review. He further

submits that the petitioner was earlier moved before this

Hon’ble Court in CWJC No.8235 of 2013 for quashing of order

dated 24.12.2011 by which the petitioner has been removed

from his service and the orders dated 19.04.2012 and

15.10.2012 passed by the appellate as well as review authority

have been set aside. Thereafter, the petitioner moved before the

Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.718 of 2023

against the order of CWJC No.8235 of 2013 by which the said

LPA was dismissed and the order passed in the said CWJC was
Patna High Court CWJC No.219 of 2025(4) dt.04-05-2026
4/13

affirmed. He further submits that against the said order, the

BHEL had moved before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in

SLP (C) No.19567 of 2024, which was finally decided on

30.08.2024. The said SLP was disposed of affirming the order

passed by Hon’ble LPA Bench with observation made in

paragraph 8 of the said Hon’ble Division Bench of the High

Court. Thereafter, the order dated 18.09.2024 has been passed

by the BHEL relating to the petitioner in compliance of order

dated 19.04.2023 passed by Hon’ble High Court in CWJC

No.8235 of 2013 which was affirmed upto Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India. In the present writ petition, it has been alleged

by the petitioner that the order dated 18.09.2024 has been

passed in gross violation of Rule 20(3) and Rule 5(12) of the

BHEL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal (CDA) Rules, 1975.

5. Counsel further submits that I.A. No.1 of 2025 has

been filed by the petitioner for amendment in relief portion of

paragraph 1 & 2 and by the said I.A., the order dated 28.01.2025

(Annexure-P/23) in which re-commencement of inquiry

/disciplinary proceedings and its final order, regarding the

petitioner, were challenged.

6. The petitioner has filed reply to I.A.No. 2 of 2026

in which the question of maintainability of the writ petition on
Patna High Court CWJC No.219 of 2025(4) dt.04-05-2026
5/13

the point of territorial jurisdiction as well as on the ground of

alternative remedy under Rules 32 and 33 of the BHEL

Conduct, Discipline and Appeal (CDA) Rules, 1975, are not

maintainble.

7. The petitioner in response of I.A. No.2 of 2026

submits that he has earlier moved before this Hon’ble Court in

CWJC No. 8235 of 2013 in which the question of

maintainability has already been raised by the BHEL and at that

relevant period of time on which this Hon’ble Court has pleased

to discuss specifically and hold that due to partial cause of

action, this writ petition is maintainable here and the same was

affirmed upto Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Therefore, he

submits that once with regard to petitioner’s case, this Hon’ble

Court entertained the writ petition, which was affirmed upto

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India again raising the same

objection with the same petitioner for same basic proceeding,

this point of territorial jurisdiction is not available for him. On

the point of alternative remedy, petitioner submits that the case

of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998)

8 SCC 1 which was re-affirmed in Harbanslal Sahnia Vs. Indian

Oil Corporation Ltd., (2003) 2 SCC 107 are in his favour as the

rule of alternative remedy does not operate as a bar where there
Patna High Court CWJC No.219 of 2025(4) dt.04-05-2026
6/13

is violation of principles of natural justice or where the orders or

proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or where the

authority has acted in defiance of directions issued by the High

Court itself. Therefore, in case of petitioner, there is no question

of applicability of alternative remedy and his writ petition is

maintainable.

8. After hearing the parties, it transpires to this Court

that for complete adjudication of this matter, what has happened

earlier is necessary to be discussed, particularly, paragraph 8 of

the LPA order by the Hon’ble Division Bench bearing LPA

No.718 of 2023, which was subsequently approved by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (C) No.19567 of 2024.

The paragraph 8 of the said Hon’ble LPA Bench is quoted

below:-

“We find absolutely no reason to
interfere with the judgment of the learned Single
Judge. Consideration the delay that has been
occasioned, we direct that the inquiry would be re-
commenced, if it is so decided, within a period of
two months from the date of uploading of this
order. If the inquiry is re-commenced, the
Disciplinary Authority shall also take a decision on
whether the writ-petitioner has to be reinstated or
not. If no such decision is taken within a period of
two months., the writ petitioner shall be reinstated
Patna High Court CWJC No.219 of 2025(4) dt.04-05-2026
7/13

in service with all attendant benefits. However, if
an inquiry is proceeded with, then the writ
petitioner shall abide by the decision arrived at
and at the close of inquiry the Disciplinary
Authority, as directed by the learned Single, Shall
also decide on the back wages payable.”
9. The order passed in the said LPA has been

challenged in SLP (C) No.19567 of 2024 by BHEL (here the

contesting respondent) and decision comes on 30.08.2024,

which states as follows:-

“No case for interference is made out
in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of
the Constitution of India.
However, we extend the period of two
months granted in terms of paragraph 8 of the
impugned order passed by the Division Bench of
the High Court by a further period of two months.
The Special Leave Petition is
accordingly dismissed.
Pending application also stands
disposed of.”
10. In this view of the matter, the first round of

litigation is ended. Thereafter, on the point of suspension and

observation made by the writ court, which was affirmed by the

LPA and Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, order has been

passed on 19.12.2024 by which non-payment of subsistence

allowance for not meeting the terms and conditions of the

impugned order was passed. It transpires to this Court that order

dated 09.12.2024 is an order on which question of suspension
Patna High Court CWJC No.219 of 2025(4) dt.04-05-2026
8/13

has also been involved and payment of said period is also

attached thereto.

11. The petitioner has challenged the said order of

suspension and benefit before this Court afresh by virtue of

filing the present writ petition bearing CWJC No.219 of 2025

initially. Subsequently, on 28.01.2025, the order of re-

commencement of inquiry /disciplinary proceedings and its final

order regarding the petitioner has been made. The order of

suspension dated 18.09.2024 has acquired finality by its

culmination into final punishment order, which the petitioner

has challenged by virtue of filing I.A. No.1 of 2025 in the

present case. In the meantime, respondents have filed I.A. No.2

of 2026 challenging the maintainability of the writ petition and

annexed a copy of the Rules 32 and 33 of the BHEL Conduct,

Discipline and Appeal (CDA) Rules, 1975 (Annexure-R/2)

which states as follows:-

32. APPEALS :- (i). An employee may
appeal against an order imposing upon him any of
the penalties specified in Rule 23 or against the
order of suspension referred to in Rule 20. The
appeal shall lie to the authority specified in the
Schedule.
(ii). An appeal shall be preferred within
one month from the date of communication of the
order appealed against. The appeal shall be
addressed to the Appellate Authority specified in
the schedule and submitted to the authority whose
Patna High Court CWJC No.219 of 2025(4) dt.04-05-2026
9/13

order is appealed against. The authority whose
order is appealed against shall forward the appeal
together with its comments and the records of the
case to the appellate authority within 15 days. The
Appellate Authority shall consider whether the
findings are justified or whether the penalty is
excessive or inadequate and pass appropriate
orders within three months of the date of appeal.
The Appellate Authority may pass orders
confirming, enhancing, reducing or setting aside
the penalty or remitting the case to the authority
which imposed the penalty or to any other
authority with such direction as may deem fit in the
circumstances of the case.
Provided that if the enhanced penalty
which the Appellate Authority purposes to impose
is a major penalty specified in clauses (f), (g), (h),
(i) and (j) of Rule 23 and an inquiry as provided in
Rule 25 has not already been held in the case, the
Appellate Authority shall direct that such an
enquiry be held in accordance with the provisions
of Rule 25 and thereafter consider the record of the
inquiry and pass such orders as it may deem
proper. If the Appellate Authority decides to
enhance the punishment but an inquiry has already
been held as provided in Rule 25, the Appellate
Authority shall give a show cause notice to the
employee as to why the enhance penalty should not
be imposed upon him. The Appellate Authority
shall pass final order after taking into account the
representation, if any, submitted by the employee.
33. REVIEW:-Notwithstanding anything
contained in these rules, the Reviewing Authority
as specified in the schedule may call for the record
of the case within six months of the date of the final
order and after reviewing the case pass such orders
thereon as it may deem fit.
Provided that if the enhanced penalty,
which the Reviewing Authority purposes to impose
Patna High Court CWJC No.219 of 2025(4) dt.04-05-2026
10/13

is a major penalty specified in clauses (f), (g), (h),
(i) and (j) of Rule 23 and an enquiry as provided
under Rule 25 has not already been held in the
case, the Reviewing Authority shall direct that such
an enquiry be held in accordance with the
provisions of Rule 25 and thereafter consider the
record of the enquiry and pass such orders as it
may deem proper. If the Reviewing Authority
decides to enhance the punishment but an enquiry
has already been held in accordance with the
provisions of Rule 25, the Reviewing Authority
shall give show cause notice to the employee as to
why the enhanced penalty should not be imposed
upon him. The Reviewing Authority shall pass final
order after taking into account the representation,
if any, submitted by the employee.
12. Upon perusal of the said Rule 32 of the BHEL

Rules, 1975, it transpires that there is provision of appeal in two

situation. Firstly, challenging the order of suspension referred in

Rule 20 and the penalty order made in Rule 23. It transpires to

this Court that order dated 09.12.2024 has been passed in

consonance with Rule 20 of the said rule, which is basically an

appealable order, but inspite of preferring the appeal, the

petitioner has challenged the said order in the writ petition. The

order dated 28.01.2025 has been passed in compliance of order

passed in LPA No.No.718 of 2023, which was affirmed in SLP

the contention of petitioner is absolutely right that this Hon’ble

Court at the time of deciding the writ petition, has already
Patna High Court CWJC No.219 of 2025(4) dt.04-05-2026
11/13

discussed on the territorial jurisdiction vide order dated

25.08.2022 passed in CWJC No.8235 of 2013, whose operative

part is stated below:-

“It is to be noted that partial cause of
action accrued in the State of Bihar with reference
to the alleged allegations. Learned counsel for the
respondent contention that cause of action would
be from the date of issuance of Article of charges,
the aforesaid contention cannot be accepted for the
reasons that time and again Courts have held that
if partial cause of action is accrued in particular
State, in that event, territorial jurisdiction of the
High Court can entertain a writ petition. Further it
is to be noted that reading of Article 226 (2) of the
Constitution of India suffice to read with the fact
that partial cause of action accrued in the State of
Bihar with reference to the alleged charge that
petitioner was working in Patna. Hence, the
aforesaid preliminary contention raised by the
respondent is hereby rejected.
Re-list this matter on 08.09.2022 to hear
on merits.”
13. Upon considering the point of territorial

jurisdiction, this Court is of the view that this Hon’ble Court

vide order dated 25.08.2022 passed in CWJC No.8235 of 2013

has categorically discussed and reached on the finding that the

preliminary contention raised by the respondent on territorial
Patna High Court CWJC No.219 of 2025(4) dt.04-05-2026
12/13

jurisdiction has been rejected relating to the petitioner.

Therefore, this Court agreed on the decision of Hon’ble High

Court on the point of territorial jurisdiction and this Court is not

inclined to interfere and the ground raised by the respondent is

hereby rejected.

14. On the other hand, upon going through the order

which is challenged in the writ petition i.e., 19.12.2024 under

Rule 20 of the BHEL Rules, 1975 and upon perusal of Rule 32,

it becomes crystal clear that the order passed under Rule 20 is

appealable order under Rule 32 of the BHEL Conduct,

Discipline and Appeal (CDA) Rules, 1975.

15. The petitioner has also challenged the final order

dated 28.01.2025 by way of filing I.A. No.01 of 2025. The said

order is appealable before the appellate forum under Rule 32 of

the BHEL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal (CDA) Rules, 1975 .

Hence, I.A. No.1 of 2025 is disposed off.

16. It is made clear that order dated 19.12.2024, under

Rule 20 of the BHEL Rules, 1975 as well as the final order

dated 28.01.2025, both are appealable. Hence, liberty has been

granted to the petitioner to challenge the final order before the

appellate forum within 30 days in the light of Rule 32 of the

BHEL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal (CDA) Rules, 1975.
Patna High Court CWJC No.219 of 2025(4) dt.04-05-2026
13/13

17. Upon perusal of the final order dated 28.01.2025,

this Court finds that the petitioner ought to take shelter of the

statutory remedy to prefer appeal and not the remedy as

indicated in the judgment of Whirlpool Corporation (supra)

and Harbanslal Sahnia (supra) as the case of the petitioner has

been decided completely on merit and upon consideration of

every aspect of the matter, it is necessary to be decided only by

the appellate court.

18. With the aforesaid directions and observations,

I.A. No.2 of 2026 filed by the respondents, is hereby allowed

and the present writ application stands dismissed with

observation that if there is any delay in filing the statutory

appeal, the appellate authority shall condone the delay and

decide the appeal on merit.

(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Prakashmani/-

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.