Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, ... vs S.K.Dubey Judgement Given By: Hon'Ble ... on 10 January, 2014
R.P. No.172/2009 10.01.2014
Shri Anoop Nair, Advocate for the petitioner. It is submitted by Shri Nair that the controversy raised in this case has already been settled by a Full Bench of this Court in R.P. No.172/2009 on 24.10.2013 in the case of M.P. Electricity Board, Jabalpur and others vs. S.K. Dubey by which the Full Bench held thus:-
"8. It is trite law that if a provision is made to deal with specific situation, the same would prevail over the general provision. [See: Maya Mathew v. State of Kerala and Others, (2010) 4 SCC 498]. At this stage, it is appropriate to notice the order dated 2.9.2003 which deals with the revised delegation of power. Under the aforesaid delegation of power, the Executive Director/Chief Engineer has been granted powers to punish and impose minor penalty for class I officers of the rank of Executive Engineer and equivalent and has been given full power in respect of officers below the rank of Executive Engineers and equivalent. The order dated 2.9.2003 issued by the M.P. Poorv Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Co. Ltd. as well as the order dated 7.5.1999 issued by the erstwhile M.P. Electricity Board, operate in different fields. The order dated 2.9.2003 pertains to Assistant Engineers promoted on regular vacancy and does not apply to the Assistant Engineers who are promoted under the Time Bound Promotion Scheme as in respect of such Assistant Engineer specific provision is made in the order dated 7.5.1999 which provides that the Superintending Engineer would be disciplinary authority against such a Junior Engineer till his absorption on the post of Assistant Engineer against the regular vacancy. Even otherwise, specific provision made with reference to Assistant Engineers promoted under the Time Bound Promotion Scheme would prevail over the order dated 2.9.2003 which contains general provisions. Thus, it is apparent that Superintending Engineer is the disciplinary authority to take action against the Assistant Engineer who has been promoted under the Time Bound Promotion Scheme in view of order dated 7.5.1999. Accordingly, the second question is answered."
In view of the settled position of law by the Full Bench, this review petition is finally disposed of in the same terms in which the Full Bench decided the matter.
No order as to costs.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) Judge psm