2026:HHC:33888 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 8603 of 2025 Decided on: 12.08 .2026 Sandeep Sharma …….Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Ravinder Thakur, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may very kindly be issued and impugned order dated 16.05.2025 as contained in Annexure P-7 along with inquiry and chargesheet may very kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued and respondents be kindly be directed to allow the petitioner to continue working as Assistant Engineer in office of Chief Engineer System Operations (Section PSP) HPSEBL Vidyut Bhawan Shimla-4.” 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:33888 2. In the light of the fact that the impugned order before this Court was the one passed by the Managing Director, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-Board were called upon to inform the Court the hierarchy of Disciplinary and Appellate Authority prescribed in the respondent-Board for disciplinary proceedings against the employees and officers of the Board. 3. In compliance thereto, learned counsel for the respondent-Board has handed over an office order dated 02.03.2024, which is taken on record. In terms of the documents appended with this office order, the delegation of disciplinary powers as far as Class-I officers are concerned, is as under: Sr. No. Description of Posts Appointing Authority Disciplinary Authority under CCS(CCA) Rules Appellate Authority 1. All Class-I Categories (For SE & Above Categories Chairman Chairman Board of Directors 2. All Class-I Categories (For Executive Engineer) Chairman Managing Director Chairman 3. Class-I categories (For Assistant Engineer Level CAO/CA Level) and and upto Class-II Services Drawing Cadre CHDM/HDM(E)/(C/M)/ Architectural Side As provided in R & P Rules Director (Pers.) Managing Director 4. Thus, a perusal of said office order demonstrates that as 3 2026:HHC:33888 far as Class-I categories (for Assistant Engineer level and upto CAO/ CA level) is concerned, the Appointing Authority is as provided in the R&P Rules, the Disciplinary Authority is the Director (Personnel) and the Appellate Authority is the Managing Director. 5. In this backdrop, if one peruses the impugned order, the same herein has been passed by the Managing Director, by exercising the powers of the Disciplinary Authority and that too under a delegated exercise of power, which is delegated to the said Authority by the Board of Directors as Disciplinary Authority. This is evident from the impugned order itself, i.e., order Annexure P-7, dated 17.05.2025, wherein it is mentioned that the findings contained in the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer and also the representations/submissions made therein by the Charged Officer were placed before the Disciplinary Authority- Board of Directors for consideration and taking a lenient view in the matter it its meting held on 27th of March, 2025 vide Agenda Item No. 74.14 wherein the Board of Directors deliberated the matter at length and following decision was taken:- "Memorandum was considered and deliberated at length. The Board of Directors authorized the Managing Director, HPSEBL to take the decision on the Inquiry 4 2026:HHC:33888 Report and issue the order accordingly." 6. In light of the fact that as per the office order handed over to the Court by the learned Counsel for the respondent-Board, the Disciplinary Authority for the category of officers up to the rank of Assistant Engineers is the Director Personnel and the Managing Director is the Appellate Authority, the order passed by the Managing Director in its capacity as Disciplinary Authority is not sustainable in law. This is more so for the reason that the Managing Director has exercised this power under a delegated power which was conferred to him in a delegated capacity in terms of the delegation made by the Board of Directors. 7. Now, at the first instance, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the Board of Directors is not the Disciplinary Authority as far as officers of the rank of Assistant Engineer are concerned. 8. That being so, the Board of Directors could not have delegated the power to the Managing Director to decide the case. Otherwise also, whenever duty is cast upon an Authority to take a decision in the matter as a quasi judicial Authority, it cannot relegate or delegate the same to some other officer. 9. Besides this, as in the case of an Assistant Engineer, the 5 2026:HHC:33888 Disciplinary Authority is the Director Personnel, the final order in the disciplinary proceedings ought to have been passed by the Director Personnel only. 10. Though this Court is not oblivious to the fact that Managing Director happens to be a superior authority than the Director Personnel, but then nothing prevented the Board to incorporate in the Rules/Regulations that the power of Disciplinary Authority can be exercised by the officer mentioned in the Rules/Regulations or any superior officer. 11. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Managing Director being without any vested authority in him to decide the matter as the Disciplinary Authority is quashed and set aside. 12. In light of the fact that the impugned order is being set aside on technicalities and not on merit, the setting aside of this order shall not come in the way of the respondent-Board to take the disciplinary proceedings, which have been initiated against the petitioner, to their logical conclusion in terms of the delegation of disciplinary powers as are mentioned in the office order which stands handed over to the Court. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand 6 2026:HHC:33888 disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 12 , 2026 (narender)