Pawan Kumar vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited & Anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Apr 28, 2026

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1263253

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1263253
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Narula
Decided On: Apr 28, 2026
Case Number: W.P.(C)/5739/2026
Subject: Right to Information

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Right to Information

Key legal issue: Right to Information

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Pawan Kumar

Advocate Mr. Pankaj Sinha, Mr. Rahul Maurya, Ms. Humaira Salam, Mr. Suil Tiwari, Mr. Kulwinder Sehjal

Respondent

Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited & Anr.

Advocate Mr. A.K. Roy, Mr. Piyush Gupta, Mr. Atishay Jain, Ms. Komal

Excerpt

.....order dated 24th march, 2026, whereby the petitioner has been removed from service.2. mr. pankaj sinha, counsel for the petitioner, submits that subsequentto the filing of the present petition, the petitioner has preferred an appeal under rule 32 of the bhel conduct, discipline and appeal rules, 19751 before the appellate authority. it is stated that the said appeal, filed on 24 th“bhel cda rules”march, 2026, is presently pending. he further submits, on instructions, that the petitioner shall be moving an application before the appellate authority seeking stay of the impugned termination order.3. at the outset, mr. a.k. roy, counsel for the respondent, raises anobjection with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of this court. notwithstanding the objection, he submits that an appeal under the bhel cda rules is ordinarily decided within the timelines prescribed under the applicable rules and that the decision thereon shall be communicated to the petitioner in accordance therewith.4. in view of the aforesaid, and considering that the petitioner hasalready availed the statutory remedy of appeal, which is presently pending, this court is not inclined to entertain the present petition at this stage. the petition is accordingly disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies in accordance with law, including approaching this court, if the need so arises, after the decision in appeal.5. it is clarified that this court has not examined the merits of the caseand all rights and contentions of the parties are left open. the present ordershall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the dispute.6. further, in view of the disposal of the petition on the ground ofavailability of an alternate remedy, this court has not adjudicated upon the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction raised by the respondent. the statement made on behalf of the petitioner regarding the proposed filing of.....

Full Judgment

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5739/2026, CM APPL. 28244-28246/2026 PAWAN KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pankaj Sinha, Mr. Rahul Maurya, Ms. Humaira Salam, Mr. Suil Tiwari and Mr. Kulwinder Sehjal, Advocates.
versus
BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. A.K. Roy, Advocate. Mr. Piyush Gupta, CGSC with Mr. Atishay Jain and Ms. Komal, Advocates for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

ORDER

% 28.04.2026

1. This writ petition is directed against charge memorandum dated 16th

September, 2024, inquiry report dated 17th July, 2025, and relieving and penalty order dated 24th March, 2026, whereby the Petitioner has been removed from service.

2. Mr. Pankaj Sinha, counsel for the Petitioner, submits that subsequent

to the filing of the present petition, the Petitioner has preferred an appeal under Rule 32 of the BHEL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 19751 before the Appellate Authority. It is stated that the said appeal, filed on 24 th

“BHEL CDA Rules”

March, 2026, is presently pending. He further submits, on instructions, that the Petitioner shall be moving an application before the Appellate Authority seeking stay of the impugned termination order.

3. At the outset, Mr. A.K. Roy, counsel for the Respondent, raises an

objection with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Notwithstanding the objection, he submits that an appeal under the BHEL CDA Rules is ordinarily decided within the timelines prescribed under the applicable Rules and that the decision thereon shall be communicated to the Petitioner in accordance therewith.

4. In view of the aforesaid, and considering that the Petitioner has

already availed the statutory remedy of appeal, which is presently pending, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition at this stage. The petition is accordingly disposed of, with liberty to the Petitioner to avail appropriate remedies in accordance with law, including approaching this Court, if the need so arises, after the decision in appeal.

5. It is clarified that this Court has not examined the merits of the case

and all rights and contentions of the parties are left open. The present order

shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the dispute.

6. Further, in view of the disposal of the petition on the ground of

availability of an alternate remedy, this Court has not adjudicated upon the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction raised by the Respondent. The statement made on behalf of the Petitioner regarding the proposed filing of an application seeking stay before the Appellate Authority is also not being commented upon.

7. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of along with pending

applications. SANJEEV NARULA, J APRIL 28, 2026 nk

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2026 Same Parties Pawan Kumar vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited & Anr. Same Subject Right to Information Same Judge Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Narula