Disposed¶27

Rajeev Kumar Garg v. Bses Rajdhani Power Limited & Ors.

Delhi HC25 Apr 2026W.P.(C)/2714/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

statutory appeal adjudicated and dismissed 09.04.2013; disciplinary major penalty reduction five stages time scale five years; charge-sheet 31.05.2011; DESU DVB successor entity allocation; BSES Rajdhani Power Limited; Appellate Authority affirmed Inquiry Officer findings; petition premise negated; jurisdictional infirmities not examined; liberty to assail appellate order; delay and laches objection reserved; W.P.(C) 2714/2026; Sanjeev Narula; Delhi High Court.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with pending application(s), if any; liberty granted to the Petitioner to assail the Appellate Authority's order dated 09.04.2013 raising all grounds available in law, including those urged in the present petition, with a corresponding liberty to the Respondents to raise all permissible objections, including delay and laches.

Rajeev Kumar Garg Vs Bses Rajdhani Power Limited & Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner's statutory appeal against the disciplinary penalty remained pending without adjudication, thereby defeating the efficacy of the remedy. +1 more

¶18

Court's answer

The foundational premise of the writ petition - that the statutory appeal remained undecided - stands negated, the record showing that the Appellate Authority had already adjudicated and dismissed the appeal by order dated 09.04.2013.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

This Court is not inclined to examine the challenge to the disciplinary proceedings and the alleged jurisdictional infirmities, as the present proceedings rest on an incorrect factual premise.

¶24

Key takeaways

Clarified that if the Petitioner assails the order passed by the Appellate Authority, it shall be open to him to raise all grounds available in law, including those urged in the present petition.ratio¶25
Clarified that in such eventuality the Respondents shall be at liberty to raise all permissible objections, including those relating to delay and laches.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Sanjeev Narula, J.), W.P.(C) 2714/2026, Rajeev Kumar Garg v. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors. (decided 25.04.2026): A former DESU/DVB employee allocated to BSES Rajdhani Power Limited filed a writ petition premised on the assertion that his statutory appeal against a 09.01.2013 Disciplinary Authority order imposing a major penalty (reduction by five stages in the time scale of pay for five years, with withholding and postponement of increments) had remained undisposed despite reminders, including one dated 15.09.2025. On the Court's direction, the Respondents produced the record showing that the Appellate Authority had in fact dismissed the appeal on 09.04.2013, affirming the Inquiry Officer's findings and the penalty order. The Court held the petition's foundational premise negated, declined to examine the alleged jurisdictional infirmities in the disciplinary proceedings, and disposed of the petition with liberty to the Petitioner to assail the Appellate Authority's order on all grounds available in law, while according the Respondents liberty to raise permissible objections, including delay and laches.

¶1

$~14 (03.03.2026)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 2714/2026 & CM APPL. 13208/2026

¶4

RAJEEV KUMAR GARG

¶5

.....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Ramesh Chand, Mr. Chandan Prajapati, Mr. Prateek Garg, Mr. Vikrant Malwal, Mr. Mukul, Mr. Lakshay Kumar, Mr. Asif Ali, Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocates.

¶7

versus

¶8

BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sandeep Prabhakar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amit Kumar, Mr. Vikas Mehta, Advocates for R-1 & 2.

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶11

[As per Notification No. 64/G-4/Gen1.-I/DHC dated 27^th February, 2026, matters listed on 3^rd March, 2026 (on account of “Holi”), are to be taken up on 25^th April, 2026.”]

¶12

The Petitioner was working as a Senior Manager with Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking,¹ which was subsequently restructured as the Delhi Vidyut Board.² Pursuant to a tripartite agreement executed in 2002, DVB was unbundled into successor entities, and the Petitioner was allocated to BSES Rajdhani Power Limited.

¶13

1 “DESU”

¶14

2 “DVB”

¶15

This is a digitally signed order.

¶16

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/04/2026 at 14:34:28

¶17

The grievance of the Petitioner arises from disciplinary proceedings initiated by way of a charge-sheet dated 31^st May, 2011. These proceedings culminated in an order dated 09^th January, 2013 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, imposing a major penalty of reduction by five stages in the time scale of pay for a period of five years. It was further directed that the Petitioner would not earn increments during the said period, and that the reduction would have the effect of postponing future increments.

¶18

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Petitioner preferred a statutory appeal. The grievance urged in the present petition is that the statutory appeal has remained pending without adjudication, thereby defeating the efficacy of the remedy. In support thereof, reliance is placed on reminders, including one dated 15^th September, 2025.

¶19

In view of the aforesaid contention, this Court had called upon the Respondents to place on record the status of the said appeal. It has now been brought to the notice of this Court that the Appellate Authority had, in fact, already adjudicated upon the appeal by order dated 09^th April, 2013, whereby the same was dismissed, affirming the findings of the Inquiry Officer and the order of the Disciplinary Authority. A copy of the said order has been provided to counsel for the Petitioner.

¶20

At this stage, counsel for the Petitioner submits that the said order was never communicated to the Petitioner. Be that as it may, the foundational premise of the present writ petition, namely, that the statutory appeal has remained undecided, stands negated in view of the record produced by the Respondents.

¶21

Insofar as the challenge sought to be raised to the disciplinary proceedings and the alleged jurisdictional infirmities is concerned, this

¶22

This is a digitally signed order.

¶23

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/04/2026 at 14:34:28

¶24

Court is not inclined to examine the same in the present proceedings, which proceed on an incorrect factual premise.

¶25

It is, however, clarified that, in the event the Petitioner seeks to assail the order passed by the Appellate Authority, it shall be open to him to raise all grounds available in law, including those urged in the present petition.

¶26

It is further clarified that, in such eventuality, the Respondents shall be at liberty to raise all permissible objections, including those relating to delay and laches.

¶27

Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of along with pending application(s), if any, with liberty as aforesaid.

¶28

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶29

APRIL 25, 2026/ab

¶30

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/04/2026 at 14:34:28

Rajeev Kumar Garg v. Bses Rajdhani Power Limited & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev Kumar Garg v. Bses Rajdhani Power Limited & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Guru Nanak Public School Vs Directorate of Education & Anr.

Laxmi Narain. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Sonya Surbhi Gupta Vs Jamia Millia Islamia

Union of India through the Secretary & Ors. Vs Prasanta Mondal

Rajendra Prasad Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Bhim Singh Panwar Vs Ahlcon Public School & Ors.

Gc Hardik Kumar TES-3992 Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sarfaraz Ahmed Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Guru Nanak Public School Vs Directorate of Education & Anr.

Laxmi Narain. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Sonya Surbhi Gupta Vs Jamia Millia Islamia

Dr. Mohit Tiwari Vs University Grants Commission & Anr.

Salvin Paul Vs Dr B.R. Ambedkar University and Ors.

Bhim Singh Panwar Vs Ahlcon Public School & Ors.