Energy Minister Has No Authority To Suspend UHBVN Officer, Only Managing Director Is Authorised: P&H High Court

Observing that State's fanciful action erodes public faith, the Punjab & Haryana High Court observed that the Energy Minister of Haryana, while acting as Chairman of the District Grievance Committee (DGC), has no authority to direct the suspension of an officer of the Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (UHBVN).  

The Court held that disciplinary action against a UHBVN employee can only be taken by the Managing Director of the corporation, being the competent authority under the applicable service rules framed in terms of Article 309 of the Constitution of India.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar said, "Prima facie, the disciplinary action of placing the petitioner under suspension has only been motivated by the declaration made by respondent No.7(Energy Minister of the State of Haryana), on account of the influence his designation wields. It must be noted that the complainant-Balwinder Singh moved the complaint before the DGC, which is a non-statutory body with no power to initiate any action in this regard."

The bench added that, at the most, it can forward the complaint to the competent authority. "It would be beneficial to reiterate that disciplinary proceedings possess a certain sacrosanct nature and have to be carried out strictly in terms of the prescribed procedure," it added.

The matter arose after a Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), posted at Guhla under the UHBVN, was directed to be suspended during a meeting of the District Grievance Committee, Kaithal, chaired by the Energy Minister. The Committee had acted on a complaint lodged by one Balwinder Singh alleging that the officer demanded a bribe for granting a permanent electricity connection to his son's poultry farm.

The petitioner submitted that multiple applications were made by one Abhinav, , for a permanent electricity connection for Vishal Poultry Farm. These were rejected as the structure was still under construction, making it eligible only for a temporary connection. The petitioner contended that Abhinav had also refused to sign an undertaking taking responsibility for any mishappening due to the high-voltage line passing near the premises.

Aggrieved, Balwinder Singh approached the District Grievance Committee, Kaithal, chaired by the State's Energy Minister. In its meeting on 10.10.2025, the Committee directed that the petitioner be suspended and an FIR registered against him. Following this, the Superintending Engineer issued a communication dated 13.10.2025 (Annexure P-7) for compliance with the Minister's directions.

The petitioner argued that the DGC is a non-statutory body and has no authority to pass any direction relating to service matters. Only the Managing Director of UHBVN, being the competent authority under the statutory service rules, could initiate disciplinary action. The petitioner further submitted that the subsequent suspension order dated 24.10.2025, passed after the filing of the writ petition, was merely an “eyewash” intended to legitimise an illegal act already influenced by the Minister's declaration.

State Counsel argued that the petitioner has already been suspended through an order dated 24.10.2025, passed by the competent authority, which has not been challenged in the present proceedings.

After hearing the parties, the Court noted that the Energy Minister had indeed issued directions for suspension and registration of FIR against the petitioner in his capacity as Chairman of the DGC. However, the Court found that such directions were beyond his authority.

“Admittedly, the petitioner is an employee of the UHBVN and any service-related misconduct on his part can only be inquired into by the competent authority in terms of the applicable service rules. In the present case, the competent authority is the Managing Director, UHBVN,” the Court observed.

The Bench remarked that the District Grievance Committee has no statutory power to direct disciplinary action or suspension. At most, it can forward the complaint to the competent authority for appropriate consideration.

The Court further noted that the subsequent suspension order appeared to have been issued without any independent application of mind and was “motivated by the declaration made by the Minister” due to the influence of his designation.

“It is evident that the disciplinary action of placing the petitioner under suspension has been motivated by the declaration made by respondent No.7. The complainant approached a non-statutory body, which cannot exercise powers vested in the competent authority,” the Court said.

Reiterating the constitutional scheme under Article 309, the Court emphasised that service rules provide employees with protection against arbitrariness:

“The State employees are constitutionally protected by Article 309 to be governed as per the conditions of service framed by the employer. The State and its instrumentalities must act in a manner that is free from whim and arbitrariness, lest it erode public faith in the rule of law.”

The Court stayed the operation of the impugned communication dated 13.10.2025 and any consequent actions arising therefrom, including coercive measures against the petitioner, till further orders.

The matter is now listed for April 21.

RAHUL YADAV VS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

Mr. Sunil K. Nehra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Viren Nehra, Advocate for the petitioner.

Click here to read order