Post-absorption, employee disciplinary control vests in the transferee company, precluding mandatory presidential approval under CCS Rules.

The Appellants, former employees of the Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB), were transferred to successor government power companies (Respondents) following the reorganization of DVB via a Tripartite Agreement dated 28.10.2000.

Between 2013 and 2025, the Respondents issued various memoranda and charge-sheets to the Appellants for alleged misconduct.

The Appellants challenged these disciplinary actions in W.P.(C) No. 1106/2026, contending that as erstwhile DVB employees, they retained "Government servant" status and no disciplinary proceedings could be initiated without the prior approval of the President of India under Rules 13 and 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

The Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition on 27.01.2026 on grounds of misjoinder of causes of action, delay, and lack of merit.

The Appellants preferred this intra-court appeal against that dismissal.

1. Whether the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the successor companies were void for lack of prior approval from the President of India under Rules 13 and 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules.

2. Whether the Appellants continued to be governed by the CCS (CCA) Rules post-absorption into the transferee companies.

3. Whether the Writ Petition was liable to be dismissed on the grounds of misjoinder of causes of action and laches.

Rule 6 of the Delhi Electricity Reform (Transfer Scheme) Rules, 2001, which mandates that upon transfer, employees cease to be in the service of the DVB and their service conditions are governed by the transferee's regulations.

The doctrine in Brij Mohan v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr., establishing that once absorption is complete, a servant cannot insist on the transferor’s disciplinary architecture.

State of Jharkhand & Anr. v. Rukma Kesh Mishra (2025 SCC OnLine SC 676), which held that the necessity of approval for initiating disciplinary action depends strictly on the construction of the specific applicable rules.

The Court reasoned that under Rule 6(6) of the Transfer Scheme Rules, the Appellants’ legal link to the DVB was severed upon transfer.

While Rule 6(7) provided a temporary continuation of old service rules as an interim arrangement, this lasted only until the transferee companies framed their own regulations.

The Court found that disciplinary control had fully migrated to the Respondents, and the Appellants failed to prove that the President remained their appointing or disciplinary authority in the post-transfer regime.

The Court further noted that a single writ petition challenging seven distinct disciplinary actions occurring over a decade (2013–2025) constituted a misjoinder of causes of action and was barred by unexplained laches.

The subsequent Notification delineating internal hierarchies did not retrospectively invalidate previous charge-sheets issued by competent authorities.

The Court upheld the Single Judge’s order, finding no merit in the challenge against the charge-sheets or the internal Notification and dismissed the Appeal, while preserving the Appellants’ right to raise legal defenses within their respective ongoing disciplinary proceedings.