Patna High Court

Madhurendra PrasadversusChairman cum Managing Director, Bihar State Power (Holding) Co. Ltd.

Decided: 6 January 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: ANIL KUMAR SINHA

Holding

The departmental proceedings and all consequent orders are void because they were initiated by an authority lacking jurisdiction, as the General Manager (HR & Administration) was not the appointing/disciplinary authority and no valid delegation of disciplinary powers to him existed.

Summary

The petitioner, a former Junior Electrical Engineer promoted to Assistant Electrical Engineer, was transferred to SBPDCL after the restructuring of BSEB under the Electricity Act, 2003. He was made a member of a committee investigating a franchisee’s financial default and later faced departmental proceedings initiated by the General Manager (HR & Administration) for alleged negligence, resulting in the withholding of two annual increments. The petitioner challenged the initiation and punishment, arguing that the General Manager lacked jurisdiction as the appointing and disciplinary authority was the Managing Director, and no valid delegation of powers existed. The respondents contended that the proceedings were lawful and that the petitioner was estopped from raising jurisdictional objections later. The Court held that the departmental proceedings were initiated by an unauthorized authority, rendering the charge sheet, show‑cause notices, and punishment orders void, and quashed all such orders, directing the respondents to restore any deducted amounts.

Issues considered

Whether the General Manager (HR & Administration) had the jurisdiction to initiate departmental proceedings against the petitioner.
Whether the initiation of the disciplinary proceeding complied with Rule 16(1) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 and the delegation of powers under the Electricity Act, 2003.
Whether the petitioner is estopped from challenging the jurisdiction of the initiating authority at a later stage.
Whether the writ petition is maintainable given the petitioner’s earlier limitation to the review order.

Legislation cited

Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 — s. Rule 16(1), Rule 2(f), Rule 2(j)
Electricity Act, 2003 — s. 132, 133, 172

Subjects

departmental proceedings
jurisdiction
disciplinary authority
delegation of powers
public service law
punishment
administrative law
Electricity Act
Bihar government rules

Judgment

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
3/18

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
4/18

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
5/18

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
6/18

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
7/18

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
8/18

(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
9/18

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
10/18

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
11/18

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
12/18

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
13/18

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
14/18

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
15/18

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
16/18

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
17/18

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
18/18

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…