[2026:RJ-JP:15776] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2882/2026 Uday Kumar Son Of Late Shri Jagdish Prasad, Aged About 53 Years, Resident Of House No. 7, Lane No. 1, Behind Mojika Homes, Shivsingpura, Maharaja Surajmal Colony, Piprali Circle, Sikar-332001, Rajasthan, Presently Posted As Senior General Manager, Sikar. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Power Grid Corporation Of India Limited, (A Government Of India Enterprises), Corporate Office At Saudamani, Plot No. 2, Sector 29M Gurugram, Hariyana- 122001, Through Its Chairman And Managing Director. 2. The Director (Personnel), Power Grid Corporation Of India Limited, Corporate Office At Saudamani, Plot No. 2, Sector 29M Gurugram, Hariyana-122001. 3. The Executive Director (Hrd), Power Grid Corporation Of India Limited, Corporate Office At Saudamani, Plot No. 2, Sector 29M Gurugram, Hariyana-122001. 4. The Chief General Manager, (Head Of Rajasthan Projects), Power Grid Corporation Of India Limited, Reil House, Shipra Path, Shanti Nagar, Mansarovar, Jaipur-303020. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Banwari Lal Sharma Mr. Namo Narayan Sharma Ms. Khushboo Rathore Mr. Mohit Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Virendra Lodha, Sr. Advocate assisted by Dr. Prateek Sharma Mr. Ashim Chatterjee HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN Order 16/04/2026 1. At the request and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard for final disposal at the admission stage itself. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of suspension dated 21.03.2025; the order [2026:RJ-JP:15776] (2 of 11) [CW-2882/2026] of first extension dated 21.07.2025; the order of second extension dated 16.12.2025 and the order of the Chairman & Managing Director (CMD) dated 08.01.2026 rejecting the representation of the petitioner. 3. The facts disclose that the petitioner was working as a Senior General Manager and he appears to have been arrested in a criminal case lodged by CBI and he was in judicial remand for more than 48 hours. On the said ground, the suspension order dated 21.03.2025 was passed by exercising power under Rule 20 of the Powergrid Conduct, Discipline and Appeal (CDA) Rules (hereinafter referred to as "the CDA Rules"). By the order dated 21.07.2025, the petitioner's initial suspension period of 90 days was extended for a further period of 180 days. The said suspension order and the first extension order were assailed before this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17254/2025 (Uday Kumar vs. The Power Grid Corporation of India Limited & Ors.). This Court, instead of invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, kept the grounds open for the petitioner and liberty was given to agitate his grievance before the authority before whom he chose to file the representation i.e. the CMD. While the proceedings were pending before the CMD, a second extension order was passed on 16.12.2025 extending the suspension for a further period of 180 days. Finally, the CMD, by order dated 08.01.2026, rejected the representation of the petitioner which was filed before the CMD as directed by this Court in the previous writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first and second orders of extension were not done in consonance with [2026:RJ-JP:15776] (3 of 11) [CW-2882/2026] with Rule 20, sub-rule 6 of the CDA Rules. His argument is that any order of extension must be passed before the expiry of the suspension period or before the expiry of extension period; however, in the present case, the extension orders have been passed after the expiry of the valid suspension or valid extension period. According to him, there is complete a violation of the service rules which enable the authority to suspend and extend the suspension period. 5. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the order of suspension and the order of first extension were assailed before this Court in the previous writ petition by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and this Court refused to exercise its jurisdiction; however, liberty was given to the petitioner to make a representation before the CMD and liberty was also given to raise all the grounds, which he raised in the previous writ petition, in the representation. The representation was directed to be decided within a period of 30 days. 6. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents also submitted that since in the earlier round of litigation, this Court refused to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to answer the questions relating to the suspension order and the first extension order, this Court, in the second round of litigation, cannot exercise such jurisdiction when there was an efficacious remedy available to the petitioner. It is also his submission that the second extension order, which is also assailed before this Court, cannot be canvassed by exercising this Court’s jurisdiction, and such [2026:RJ-JP:15776] (4 of 11) [CW-2882/2026] assailment shall be canvassed before the effective remedy of appeal and not before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He also submitted that in the earlier round of litigation the direction was given by this Court to file a representation before the CMD, and though the CMD refused to interfere in the matter, the order cannot be found fault with for the reason that as per the CDA Rules, he is not the appellate authority to deal with the invalidity of the order of suspension or extension, and the appropriate appellate authority is the Committee of the Board. No fault can be found with the order of the CMD in rejecting the representation of the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when there is an order by this Court to decide the invalidity of a previous order, the authority cannot abdicate its power and reject the order without any reasons. 8. In light of such submissions, this Court finds it appropriate to refer to Rule 20 of the CDA Rules, particularly Sub-Rule 5, 6, 7 and 8, which read as under: "Rule 20: Suspension 1. to 4. ………... 5. An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this Rule may at any time be revoked by the authority which made or is deemed to have made the order or by an authority to which that authority is subordinate. 6. An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule shall be reviewed by the authority which is competent to modify or revoke the suspension before expiry of ninety days from the date of order of suspension on the recommendation of the review committee constituted for the purpose and pass orders either extending or revoking the suspension. Subsequent review shall be made before expiry of the [2026:RJ-JP:15776] (5 of 11) [CW-2882/2026] extended period of suspension. Extension of suspension shall not be for a period exceeding one hundred and eighty days at a time. 7. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule 5 an order of suspension made or deemed to have made under sub-rule (1) or (2) of this rule shall not be valid after a period of ninety days unless it is extended after review for a further period before the expiry of ninety days. 8. Review committee for this purpose shall consist of the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority and an employee from other department/Region of the level of disciplinary/appellate authority. However, where CMD/Board is the disciplinary authority, review committee shall consist of three executives of the level of GM/ED/Functional Director who are higher in rank than the suspended employee. Further, where CMD/Board is appellate authority, review committee shall consist of disciplinary authority, employee from other department/Region of the level of disciplinary authority and one executive at GM/ED/Functional Director level who is higher in the rank than the suspended employee.” From a reading of Sub-Rule 5 of Rule 20 it can be seen that it enables the suspending authority to revoke the suspension at any time. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 20 requires that every extension, i.e., the first extension, must be done before the expiry of 90 days, and the second extension shall be done before the expiry of the period prescribed in the first extension order. Sub-rule (7) of Rule 20 invalidates an order of first extension if it is not done within a period of 90 days. This means that the invalidity has been confined to the first extension order only. Sub-rule (8) of Rule 20 deals with the review committee which is required to consider extension and on the recommendation of the review committee, the order of extension will be passed by the disciplinary authority. [2026:RJ-JP:15776] (6 of 11) [CW-2882/2026] 9. It is also relevant to refer to Rule 32 of the CDA Rules which deals with the power of appeals. Rule 32 of the CDA Rules reads as follows: "Rule 32: Appeals 1. An employee may appeal against an order imposing upon him any of the penalties specified in Rule 23 or against the order of suspension referred to in Rule 20. The appeal shall lie to the authority specified in the Annexure-I. 2. An appeal shall be preferred within one month from the date of communication of the order appealed against. The appeal shall be addressed to the Appellate Authority specified in the Annexure I and submitted to the authority whose order is appealed against. The authority whose order is appealed against shall forward the appeal together with its comments and the records of the case to the appellate authority within 15 days. The appellate authority shall consider whether the findings are justified or whether the penalty is excessive or inadequate and pass appropriate orders within three months of the date of appeal. The appellate authority may pass order confirming enhancing, reducing or setting aside the penalty, or remitting the case to the authority which imposed the penalty, or to any other authority with such direction as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case. Provided that if the enhanced penalty which the appellate authority proposes to impose is a major penalty specified in clause (f) to (j) of Rule 23 and an inquiry as provided in Rule 25 has not already been held in the case, the appellate authority shall direct that such an enquiry be held in accordance with the provisions of Rule 25 and thereafter consider the record of the inquiry and pass such order as it may deem proper. If the appellate authority decides to enhance the punishment but an enquiry has already been held as provided in Rule 25, the appellate authority shall give a show-cause notice to the employee as to why the enhanced penalty should not be imposed upon him. The appellate authority shall pass final order after taking into account the representation, if any, submitted by the employee." [2026:RJ-JP:15776] (7 of 11) [CW-2882/2026] 10. The remedy of appeal also lies against the suspension order. This implies that even the order of extension can be assailed in an appeal. 11. It is also relevant to refer to Annexure-B which is the Schedule of Delegation of Powers in respect of Disciplinary Matters under CDA Rules, particularly with reference to the grade of the petitioner. It is not disputed that the petitioner holds the grade of E8 and the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and review authority have been detailed in Annexure-B, which reads as follows: "ANNEXURE B: Schedule of Delegation of Powers in respect of Disciplinary Matters under CDA Rules Grade Disciplinary Authority (DA) Appellate Authority (AA) Reviewing Authority (RA) Minor Penalty Major Penalty Removal, dismissal & Compulsory Retirement Executives E8 Concerned Functional Director* Concerned Functional Director* Appointing Authority i.e. CMD In case DA is Director CMD Committee of Board In case DA is CMD Committee of Board# Board of Directors * Concerned Functional Director shall mean the Functional Director having administrative/functional control over the Department/Region/Project or individuals working in them. # Committee of Board shall comprise all Functional Directors excluding CMD and the Director who acted as DA in the case." 12. The order of suspension refers to the signature of the Executive Director (HRD), who signed on behalf of the disciplinary authority. This means the Executive Director seems to be communicating the decision of the disciplinary authority. As per the above schedule, the disciplinary authority is the CMD who happens to be the appointing authority. If the order of suspension [2026:RJ-JP:15776] (8 of 11) [CW-2882/2026] is passed by the CMD, remedy of appeal is provided to the Committee of the Board and review is provided by the Board of Directors. The note in the Annexure-B of the above Schedule also indicates that the Committee of the Board shall comprise of the functional directors excluding the CMD and the Director who acted as the disciplinary authority in the case. This means that in case the decision of suspension has been taken by the CMD, the CMD shall not be a part of the Committee of Board which will hear the appeal against the order of suspension. Similarly, extension order is also required to be assailed. These rules clearly stipulate that an order of suspension is required to be appealed to the Committee of Board which excludes the CMD/Director who passed the order of suspension. 13. In the previous round of litigation, the petitioner, without exhausting the remedy of appeal, chose to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court refused to invoke its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and it has not decided all the questions raised in the writ petition; however, those grounds were kept open to be decided by the authority to whom the representation was directed to be filed and he was directed to decide such grounds. The previous order clearly shows that this Court was not inclined to invoke its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This means that in the second round of litigation i.e. by the present writ petition, this Court again cannot decide the invalidity of the suspension order and the first extension order which were subject matter in the previous writ petition. Now, if this Court chooses to decide such questions, it would amount to a violation [2026:RJ-JP:15776] (9 of 11) [CW-2882/2026] of the principle of res judicata to the extent of its refusal to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; however, it is made clear that the res judicata does not apply to the questions raised in the writ petition for the reason that those questions were not decided by this Court in the previous writ petition. Therefore, this Court feels that it cannot re-invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the same orders which were assailed before this Court in the previous writ petition. 14. While dealing with the second extension order, this Court finds that there is an effective remedy of appeal under the CDA Rules before the Committee of Board. Without invoking the jurisdiction of the appellate authority, the petitioner again approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing the second extension order in addition to the challenge made to the suspension order and the first extension order. This Court is not inclined to invoke its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India so far as the second extension is concerned; however, liberty is given to agitate such questions which are raised in the writ petition while dealing with the second extension order before the appellate authority. 15. Dealing with the order of the CMD, the CMD, by the order dated 08.01.2026, rejected interference in the order of suspension and the first order of extension. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to bring before this Court the power of the CMD, who is the appointing authority/disciplinary authority, to review its own order. The reviewing authority is different from the original authority. Review [2026:RJ-JP:15776] (10 of 11) [CW-2882/2026] is a statutory conferment; it is not implicit in the original authority. The statute must confer the power of review. The petitioner failed to bring before this Court any provision which enables the appointing authority/disciplinary authority/original authority to review its own order. The schedule shows that the reviewing authority is the Board of Directors; if any review is to be made, review must be before the Board of Directors and not the CMD. Though, direction was given by this Court to decide the representation, the said direction has been complied with by holding that the CMD refused to interfere in the order of suspension or extension. The order of the CMD cannot be found faulted for the reason that he has no authority to review his own order which can only be done by the conferment of statute of such power, which is lacking in the present case. Therefore, the order of the CMD cannot be found fault with. 17. It is made clear that the petitioner, instead of approaching the appropriate authority under the CDA Rules which can assume jurisdiction to decide the invalidity or validity of any proceedings whereby the petitioner was suspended or his suspension was extended, approached this Court, which is not the appropriate forum; therefore, instead of adopting a proper forum, the petitioner has approached the improper forum. 18. It is also made clear that any observation by the CMD touching the merits of the first and second extension orders should be expunged and such findings shall have no impact on the appellate authority. 19. In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed. The order of the CMD dated 08.01.2026, to the extent of making [2026:RJ-JP:15776] (11 of 11) [CW-2882/2026] observations touching the merits of both the first and second extension orders, is set aside and expunged. Such order shall not affect or influence the decision making process of the appellate authority. Liberty is given to the petitioner to choose the remedy so far as the orders which are under challenge before this Court relating to suspension, first extension and second extension. 20. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (MUNNURI LAXMAN),J 131 - BhumikaP/-