Madhya Pradesh High Court
Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut ... vs Vikas Gupta on 6 April, 2017
1 Writ Appeal No.157/2017
06.04.2017
Shri Vivek Jain, Advocate for the appellants.
Shri R.K. Soni, Advocate for the respondent.
The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the learned Single Bench on 15.02.2017 in W.P.No.6335/2016 whereby an order of suspension of the respondent herein on 01.09.2016 was found to be passed by a person who was not substantively working as Chief General Manager and thus not competent to pass an order of suspension.
The petitioner was working as Assistant Engineer, Baraghat City Circle, Gwalior. He was suspended by Shri S.K. Upadhyay said to be working as Chief General Manager, Gwalior Region. The challenge to the suspension was on the ground that Shri S.K. Upadhyay was holding substantive rank of the Deputy Chief General Manager. Though on 26.02.2016 he was given current duty charge of the post of Chief General Manager but after his substantive promotion as Deputy Chief General Manager on 24.06.2016, there was no 2 Writ Appeal No.157/2017 order of their current duty charge of the post of Chief General Manager, therefore, order of suspension is illegal.
The learned Single Bench allowed the writ petition holding that the present appellants could not clarify as to how the Managing Director of the appellant-Corporation could have delegated the authority of discharging of the function of the Chief General Manager on Shri Upadhyay. After observing so, the learned Single Bench held as under:
" In view of this fact, it is apparent that when the delegation of powers exercising the disciplinary authority is clearly vested in a Chief General Manager or the Executive Director or the Chief Engineer of the region and admittedly the person who issued impugned suspension order was not substantively working as Chief General Manager and who admittedly misrepresented himself to be Chief General Manager in the impugned order inasmuch as he was vested with the authority power as Dy. Chief General Manager and was only authorized to exercise the powers of Chief General Manager by the Managing Director, the impugned order cannot be said to have been passed by a competent authority and, therefore, it deserves to be quashed and is hereby quashed."
Before this Court, learned counsel for the appellant 3 Writ Appeal No.157/2017 refers to Annexure-R/1 dated 26.02.2016 wherein Shri S.K. Upadhyay was posted against the post of Deputy Chief General Manager on current charge basis. He was also directed to look after the work of Chief General Manager. The relevant extract from the order reads as under:
"Shri S.K. Upadhyay, GM(O&M), Hoshangabad is hereby posted on current charge basis as Dy. Chief General Manager, O/o CGM(GR), Gwalior, till further orders.
The posting of Shri S.P. Upadhyay, GM on current charge basis as Dy. Chief General Manager is without prejudice to affecting the seniority of any order GM-SE(T&D).
He is directed to look after the work of Chief General Manager (GR), Gwalior and is authorized to exercise the powers of Chief General Manager, with effect from 01.03.2016 till further orders.
Sd/-
(Vivek Porwal) Managing Director"
It is thereafter Shri S.K. Upadhyay was substantively posted as Deputy Chief General Manager by an order passed by the Chief General Manager but there is no order of revocation of order passed by the Managing Director authorizing Shri S.K. Upadhyay to 4 Writ Appeal No.157/2017 exercise the powers of Chief General Manager as well. The relevant part of order dated 24.06.2016 reads as under:
"Shri S.K. Upadhyay, Dy Chief General Manager (T&D) on current charge and presently looking after the work of Chief General Manager (GR), Bhopal is hereby appointed temporarily to officiate until further orders as Dy. Chief General Manager-Addl. Chief Engineer and posted at the present place of posting w.e.f. the date of assuming charge.
2. The above appointment will be on probation and shall be governed by the provisions contained in Circular No.01- 05/58 dtd 29.04.89 read with 01-05/1/93 dated 18.07.1989, No.01-05/1/1-25473 dtd 21.04.90 No.01-13/1 dtd 09.01.95 and read with Circular No.01-13/3422/19 dated 01.07.05." The appellants have referred to the delegation of powers on behalf of Corporation including upon its Managing Director. Part-A Section-III Clause 7 empowers the Managing Director to entrust current charge of higher office in the post of Class-I and Class-II without prejudice to the seniority of the officers. It is thus contended that the Managing Director has passed an order to authorize Shri S.K. Upadhyay to exercise the powers of Chief General Manager by the order dated 26.02.2016, which order has not been superseded or 5 Writ Appeal No.157/2017 varied in any manner by Chief General Manager when Shri S.K. Upadhyay was promoted on substantive basis as the Deputy Chief General Manager. Since the current duty charge was granted by the Managing Director of the Corporation in terms of statutory delegation, therefore, it cannot be said that Shri S.K. Upadhyay was not competent to pass an order of suspension We find that the order passed by the learned Single Bench is not sustainable. Shri Upadhyay was given current duty charge of the post of Chief General Manager. The said order has not been varied in any manner after Shri Upadhyay was promoted substantially on the post of Deputy Chief General Manger. Therefore, he was competent to act as Chief General Manger and pass an order of suspension. We do not find any error in the order of suspension passed by Shri S.K. Upadhyay on 01.09.2016. Therefore, the order of the Learned Single Judge cannot be said to be legal. The same is accordingly set aside.
At this stage, learned counsel for the writ petitioner (respondent herein) states that he has remedy of filing 6 Writ Appeal No.157/2017 an appeal against the order of suspension.
If it is so, the respondent may avail such remedy in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid liberty, writ appeal stands allowed and disposed of.
(Hemant Gupta) (S.A.Dharmadhikari)
Chief Justice Judge
shukla