BS Puria v. Indraprastha Power Generation Co. Ltd. & Anr.

1. The present appeal has been preferred seeking setting aside of the judgment dated 19.01.2022 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) 3495/2021, vide which appellant’s challenge to the issuance of charge sheet imposing major penalty on the ground of having been issued by an incompetent officer, has been dismissed.

2. The background facts of the case presented before this Court are that the appellant had joined the services to the post of Asst. Executive Engineer 2022:DHC:1843-DB (E & M) on 26.11.1990 and subsequent upon incorporation of respondent No.1, appellant was transferred to respondent No.1 and was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer on 04.06.2012 and further promoted to the post of Senior Manager before retiring on 31.05.2018.

3. During the course his duties, appellant was first served with memorandum of charge dated 20.12.2017 in relation to misbehaviour with a senior and thereafter another memorandum of charge dated 23.04.2018 was also served upon him by respondent No.2. With regard to both the memorandum of charges, enquiry officers were appointed by respondent No.2 and enquiry proceedings were carried out.

4. The aforenoted charge sheets dated 20.12.2017 and 23.04.2018, were challenged by the appellant by way of writ petition (W.P.(C) NO. 3495/2021) before the learned Single Bench of this Court on the ground that respondent No.2 i.e. Director (T) was not the competent authority to issue the charge sheet thereby rendering the issuance of charge sheets as illegal. In addition, issuance of charge sheets was challenged being vitiated by gross mala fides on the part of respondent No.1 and its senior officers.

5. During the course of hearing learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant submitted that the learned Single Bench has failed to appreciate that a charge sheet for major penalty proceedings can be instituted only by the officer who is competent to do it, which in this case should have been Director (HR), whereas charge sheet in this case has been issued by Director (Tech). Further submitted that the provisions of Rule 13(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules relates to institution of disciplinary proceedings, subsequent to which charge sheet is issued and the learned Single Judge has failed to distinct between these two stages. Learned counsel next submitted that in a case, disciplinary proceedings can be initiated under Rule 13(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, however, under the provisions of Rule 14(3) and 14(4) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, charge sheet could have been issued by the disciplinary authority who is competent to impose penalty in question by virtue of Rule 2(g) of the 1965 Rules. In support of above submissions, learned counsel for appellant placed reliance upon decisions in Union of India & Ors. Vs. B. V. Gopinath & Ors., (2014) 1 SCC 351 and decision dated 10.01.2017, titled as M.K. Saini Vs.

IPGCL in W.P.(C) No. 202/2017.

6. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that the relevant Service Rules which govern the service conditions of the appellant specifically prescribed the delegation of power for initiating disciplinary proceedings against employees in relation to Group ‘A’ posts, which is as under:- ▪ Competent Authority for imposition of Minor Penalty – Director (Concerned) ▪ Competent Authority for imposition of Major Penalty except compulsory retirement, removal and dismissal – Director (Concerned) ▪ Competent Authority for imposition of Major Penalty of compulsory retirement, removal and dismissal – Director (HR)

7. It was submitted that the appellant herein was since Sr. Manager (Technical) at the relevant point in time, the concerned Director in their case would have been Director (Technical). Accordingly, the competent authority to initiate minor penalty as well as major penalty (other than compulsory retirement, removal and dismissal) and to issue the chargesheet in such proceedings would be Director (Technical) and the competent Authority to initiate and award major penalty of compulsory retirement, removal and dismissal and issue chargesheet in such proceedings would be Director (HR).

8. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant at length and perused the impugned judgment and decisions cited.

9. Pertinently, Para-27 of the impugned judgment dated 19.01.2022 elaboratively notes the Delegation of Powers (DOP) in Indraprastha Power Generation Company Limited & Pragati Power Corporation Limited and further observed and held as under:- “28. The DOP is clear in stipulating the authority who can impose penalty, both minor and major, in terms of Rule 11 of the Rules of 1965. As the petitioners were holding Group „A‟ posts, the Director concerned, i.e., Director (Technical), is the authority competent to impose minor and major penalties except compulsory retirement, dismissal and removal. The DOP only stipulates, the Director (HR) is the appointing authority for Group „A‟ posts except General Manager or equivalent posts and Company Secretary. It does not state, which is the authority competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings.

29. Even Rule 2(a) of the Rules of 1965 stipulates appointing authority to mean the authority competent to make appointments but Rule 2(g) of the Rules of 1965 which defines Disciplinary Authority to mean an authority competent under the Rules to impose on a government servant any of the penalties specified under Rule 11 of the Rules of 1965.

30. Mr. Vats is right in stating that the issue whether Director (Technical) can initiate disciplinary proceedings is covered by the provisions of Rule 13 (2) of the Rules of 1965 which I reproduce as under: