A subsequent circular cannot retrospectively validate disciplinary penalties imposed by an incompetent current-charge authority.

The appellants, Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limited and its officers, challenged the order dated 04.05.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 29673/2022.

The Single Judge had quashed three penalty orders dated 18.09.2019 and the corresponding appellate orders dated 22.06.2020 passed against the respondent, Yogesh Chaurasia.

The penalties had been imposed by respondent No. 3(B), who was holding the post of Deputy General Manager on current charge.

The respondent had appealed against the penalties, and the appellate authority had affirmed them after providing an opportunity of hearing.

1. Whether an officer holding the post of Deputy General Manager on current charge was competent to impose the penalty orders dated 18.09.2019?

2. Whether a subsequent departmental circular authorizing officers holding current charge to exercise disciplinary powers could retrospectively validate the penalty orders passed in 2019?

3. Whether the subsequent appellate orders affirming the penalties could cure the defect arising from the original orders having been passed by an incompetent authority?

4. Whether the decision in W.A. No. 157/2017, M.P. Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Ltd. v. Vikas Gupta, required interference with the Single Judge’s order?

Rule 3 of the M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 was relied upon as the substantive standard governing devotion to duty and integrity.

The M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 governed the disciplinary and appellate process.

The Court applied the principle that statutory disciplinary powers must be exercised by an authority competent under the applicable service framework; an officer holding a higher post merely on current charge is not automatically competent to exercise every statutory power attached to that post.

The Court relied on M.P. Poorv Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Kachchi, W.A. No. 1449/2024, for the proposition that an officer holding a post on current charge could not exercise the statutory disciplinary power solely by virtue of such charge.

A subsequent circular or administrative direction cannot retrospectively validate an order that was passed without jurisdiction or by an incompetent authority, absent material showing retrospective operation.

The penalty orders were passed in 2019 by an officer who was holding the post of Deputy General Manager only on current charge.

Although the appellants relied on a departmental circular authorizing current-charge officers to exercise disciplinary powers, the Court found that the circular was subsequent to the penalty orders and that no material established its retrospective application.

Consequently, it could not validate the original orders.

The Court further held that the respondent’s opportunity of hearing and the appellate authority’s confirmation of the penalties did not cure the foundational defect concerning the competence of the original disciplinary authority, because competence goes to the root of the matter.

The precedent in Vikas Gupta did not assist the appellants, as it did not lay down a general rule conferring all statutory powers on every current-charge officer.

Since the original penalty orders were unsustainable, the consequential appellate orders also could not survive.

The appellate orders dated 22.06.2020 were likewise unsustainable because they affirmed the defective original orders.

The writ appeal was dismissed, and the Single Judge’s order dated 04.05.2026 in W.P. No. 29673/2022 was affirmed.