Akhilesh Kumar v. The Chairman Cum Managing Director, Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited, Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14442 of 2025 ====================================================== Akhilesh Kumar Son of Late Baso Chaudhary, Resident of Village New Mainpura, Kharanja Road, P.S. and Town-Danapur, District-Patna. At present suspended Controller of Stores and Purchase (Store and Purchase) hereinafter called (C.O.S.), South Bihar Power Distribution Limited, Bailey Road, Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The Chairman cum Managing Director, Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited, Bihar Bidhyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 2.

The Chief Engineer (Store and Purchase), South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited, Bidhyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna, Bihar. 3.

The Electrical Superintending Engineer (Store), South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited, Bidhyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 4.

Sunil Kumar Jha, retired Deputy Development Commissioner cum Enquiring Officer, South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited, Bidhyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

5.

Dinesh Ram, Section Officer cum Presenting Officer, South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited, Bidhyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Akhilesh Dutta Verma For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Vivek Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 08-09-2025 Heard the parties.

2. This application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking a direction upon the respondents for supplying the documents related to charge levelled against the petitioner in departmental charge sheet in compliance of Rule17(6) and Rule 17(11) of the Bihar Government Servant (Classification Control and Appeal) Rule 2005.

Patna High Court CWJC No.14442 of 2025(2) dt.08-09-2025 2/2

3. The departmental proceeding against the petitioner is going on and the petitioner has challenged the same in the mid-way.

4. In the opinion of this Court, this kind of challenge is not maintainable.

5. Accordingly, this application is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner that if any adverse order is passed in the departmental proceeding then a fresh writ application may be preferred by the petitioner against the same. (Sandeep Kumar, J) Vikas/- U