Disciplinary Authority Of Parent Organization Can Issue Chargesheet Against Employee's Misconduct In Borrowing Department: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that once the employee is sent back to his parent department, it is the competent disciplinary authority of the parent organisation which can issue a charge sheet against the misconduct even though it has taken place in the borrowing department.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad dismissed an appeal against a single judge order which had refused to grant relief to a man, employed as an Executive Director in the Power Finance Corporation Limited, challenging a chargesheet wherein he was proposed to be proceeded against in disciplinary action in accordance with the provisions made in Rules 28 and 30 of the Power Finance Corporation Limited (Conduct Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

In December 2014, the Assistant General Manager – HR, passed an order transferring the Appellant back to PFCL after which he was posted as Executive Director (Felicitation Group).

After the Petitioner was posted back to the company, a complaint was received by Central Vigilance Commission and the same was forwarded to the Ministry of Power. The Chief Vigilance Officer opined that the Petitioner should be placed under suspension, and disciplinary proceedings be initiated against him.

Accordingly, disciplinary proceedings was initiated in October 2014 against the appellant. Resultantly, there was an effective consultation between PFCL and PFCCL while initiating disciplinary proceedings against the Appellant.

The competent Disciplinary Authority, after careful consideration of the response of the Appellant issued a chargesheet in March 2015. The Disciplinary Authority also appointed a Presiding Officer in the matter.

The enquiry proceedings continued upto August 2015, and the Appellant being aggrieved by the chargesheet and the disciplinary proceedings preferred a Writ Petition before High Court.

The stay in respect of the departmental enquiry granted in September 2015 continued till May 18, 2022 till the matter was decided by the Single Judge.

The single judge dismissed appellant's plea after observing that merely because the period of deputation of an employee may have come to an end, it would not divest the Disciplinary Authority of the company, Power Finance Corporation Limited (PFCL) in the present matter, from initiating an enquiry.

It also opined that the fact that the alleged misdemeanor was committed while the petitioner was serving on deputation does not detract from the Commission of misconduct.

In appeal, the division bench observed that the appellant projected a case that he was on deputation and after his repatriation to the parent department, by no stretch of imagination, the proceedings against him could have been initiated by PFCL (Parent Organization) for any event which took place while he was on deputation to PFCCL.

Noting that the chargesheet was issued after effective consultation between PFCL and PFCCL at the instance of the Central Vigilance Commission, the Court said:

"Therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in holding that as the writ petitioner was an employee of PFCL, he was temporarily posted to PFCCL, the charge sheet was rightly issued by competent disciplinary authority even though the misconduct was committed by him while serving PFCCL."

"The statutory provisions quoted above makes it very clear that they relates to a period during which an employee is on deputation and would operate only during the tenure of service rendered by an employee in the borrowing entity. Once the employee is sent back to his parent department, it is the competent disciplinary authority of the parent organisation which can issue a charge sheet against the misconduct even though it has taken place in the borrowing department."

The Court thus concluded that since the charges were not vague and the chargesheet was issued by the competent disciplinary authority, the question of interference by High Court did not arise.

"Resultantly, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is accordingly dismissed," the Court ordered.

Case Title: N.D. TYAGI v. POWER FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 743

Click Here To Read Order