An officer holding current charge may initiate disciplinary proceedings when duly empowered under delegated authority.

The respondents in Writ Appeals Nos. 616/2024, 1317/2024 and 1449/2024 were employees of the appellant Electricity Distribution Companies against whom charge-sheets proposing departmental enquiries were issued for alleged misconduct.

The charge-sheets were issued by officers holding the “current charge” of higher posts, including Chief Engineer and Additional Chief Engineer, under the Company’s Delegation of Powers.

The employees challenged the charge-sheets before the learned Single Judge, contending that officers who were not substantively appointed to the higher posts lacked authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings.

The learned Single Judge relied principally on Girija Shankar Shukla v. SDO, Harda, AIR 1973 MP 104, and quashed the charge-sheets.

The Electricity Companies filed appeals against those orders. In Writ Appeal No. 1724/2024, the employee challenged a similar disciplinary proceeding.

1. Whether an officer holding the current charge of a higher post under the Company’s Delegation of Powers is competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings and issue a charge-sheet against employees falling within that higher authority’s disciplinary jurisdiction.

2. Whether the mere fact that the officer is not the substantive holder of the higher post invalidates the exercise of disciplinary powers conferred under the applicable Delegation of Powers.

3. Whether the High Court should interfere at the stage of issuance of a charge-sheet where the challenge is based solely on the alleged incompetence of the issuing authority.

The appeals were maintainable under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.

The Court applied the principle that an officer entrusted with the current charge of a higher office may exercise the powers and perform the duties attached to that office where the governing statutory framework, service rules or Delegation of Powers authorizes such exercise.

The Company’s Delegation of Powers specifically conferred disciplinary powers on officers such as the Additional Chief Engineer/Superintending Engineer “in charge of circle” and other officers functioning in charge.

In Gopalji Khanna v. Allahabad Bank, (1996) 3 SCC 538, the Supreme Court held that an officer placed in charge of an office is entitled to perform the duties and functions attached to that office, and that current-charge arrangement does not amount to promotion but may nevertheless confer functional authority.

The Full Bench in A. Savariar v. Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, 2008 (4) CTC 753, held that, absent a contrary statutory provision or executive instruction, an officer holding a post in charge may discharge its statutory functions.

Girija Shankar Shukla was confined to its factual and statutory context, particularly the absence of authorization empowering the current-charge officer to exercise the relevant powers.

The Court also relied on P.S. Dhanwal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, W.A. No. 575/2020, and Mahendra Pratap Singh v. Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Ltd., W.A. No. 1261/2024, for the proposition that competence must be assessed by reference to the governing framework rather than merely the nomenclature “current charge.”

Finally, a charge-sheet merely initiates disciplinary proceedings and does not determine guilt or impose a penalty; therefore, courts should ordinarily exercise restraint against interference at that preliminary stage.

The Court examined the Company’s Delegation of Powers and found that it did not merely assign routine administrative duties to current-charge officers; it expressly authorized officers holding charge of higher offices to exercise the powers attached to those offices, including disciplinary powers.

Consequently, the officers functioned as the heads of the relevant offices for the period of their entrustment, and their lack of substantive appointment to the higher post did not, by itself, invalidate the charge-sheets.

The Court distinguished Girija Shankar Shukla because that decision involved no comparable statutory or executive authorization.

It further held that Gopalji Khanna and A. Savariar supported the validity of action taken by an authorized current-charge officer.

Since the charge-sheets only commenced enquiries and did not impose punishment, the employees’ objections could be examined during the disciplinary process, subject to the governing rules and natural justice; quashing the proceedings at inception on a technical objection was therefore unwarranted.

Writ Appeals Nos. 616/2024, 1317/2024 and 1449/2024 filed by the Electricity Distribution Companies were allowed, and the orders of the learned Single Judge quashing the charge-sheets were set aside.

Writ Appeal No. 1724/2024 filed by the employee was dismissed.

No order was made as to costs.