Delhi High Court
Shri Fajalur Rahaman vs I.P.G.C.L. Through Its Managing ... on 19 January, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: January 19, 2022
+ W.P.(C) 890/2020, CM APPL. 2874/2020
SHRI FAJALUR RAHAMAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. N.S. Dalal and Mr. Alok Kumar,
Advs.
versus
I.P.G.C.L. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND
ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. R. K. Vats and
Ms. Kumari Alka, Advs.
AND
+ W.P.(C) 3495/2021, CM APPL. 10588/2021
B S PURIA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anunaya Mehta and
Mr. Vinayak Thakur, Advs.
versus
INDRAPRASTHA POWER GENERATION CO. LTD.
& ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. R. K. Vats and
Ms. Kumari Alka, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
JUDGMENT
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
1. As an identical issue arises for consideration in these two writ
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
Signing Date:19.01.2022
22:17:46
petitions, they are being decided together through this common order.
The issue that has arisen is whether the Director (Technical) is
competent to issue charge sheet to the petitioners herein.
W.P.(C) 890/2020
2. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the
following prayers:
―Therefore, on the facts and in the circumstances of the
case, it is most humbly and respectfully prayed that this
Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to:-
i. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction thereby
quashing the chargesheet memo dated 07.09.2017 along
with order dated 31.05.2018 for Inquiry under Rule-14 of
CCS(CCA) Conduct Rule 1965, which is for major
penalty proceedings issued by Sh.Jagdish Kumar-
Director (Technical), I.P.G.C.L., whereby he is claiming
to be the Disciplinary Authority and who appointed an
Inquiry officer to conduct the enquiry against the
Petitioner herein;
ii. Pass any such other or further orders as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, in favour of the Petitioner and
against the Respondent.‖
3. The petitioner while working as Deputy Manager, at the
respondent No.1 Company, has been issued a charge sheet on
September 07, 2017 under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965
('Rules of 1965', for short) by Director (Technical).
4. A reply to the charge sheet has been filed on September 21,
2017.
W.P.(C) 3495/2021
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
Signing Date:19.01.2022
22:17:46
5. Similarly, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner
with the following prayers:
―Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may be pleased to:
(i) Pass an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing
the memorandums of charge (chargesheet) issued by the
Respondent No. 2 [Director (Technical) of Respondent
No.1 Organization] upon the Petitioner bearing (1)
No.F.2/164/2017/Sr.Mgr.(HR) DC/326 dated 20.12.2017
and (2) No.F.6/306/2017/Vig/Mgr(HR)/ DC/2017-18/
1955 dated 23.04.2018;
(ii) In the alternative to and without prejudice prayer
(i), pass an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring
that the penalty of compulsory retirement, removal or
dismissal cannot be imposed upon the Petitioner in the
pending disciplinary proceedings;
(iii) Pass such other and further orders in the facts and
circumstances of the case.‖
6. At the outset, Mr. N.S. Dalal, learned counsel for the petitioner
in W.P.(C) 890/2020 would submit that, the counter affidavit was filed
on behalf of the respondents through G. Srikumar, Senior Manager
(HR) who is an employee of Pragati Power Corporation Limited
('PPCL', for short), which is a Public Company and has nothing to do
with the respondent Company, i.e., Indraprastha Power Generation
Company Limited ('IPGCL', for short, respondent No.1 herein) as
such is not competent to file the affidavit. In other words, the
representation of G. Srikumar that he is working in the respondent
Company is factually incorrect.
7. In substance, it is Mr. Dalal's submission that the respondent
No.1 and PPCL are two different entities and hence only the employee
working in the respondent No.1 Company could have filed the counter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
Signing Date:19.01.2022
22:17:46
affidavit. It is not known how G. Srikumar can be conversant with the
facts of the case when he is not the employee of the respondent No.1
Company. So, he cannot file the counter affidavit.
8. On merit, the submission of Mr. Dalal, is that the Director
(Technical) is not competent to issue a charge sheet to a Group 'A'
employee of IPGCL, i.e., respondent No.1 herein, in case of major
penalty proceeding under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1965, rather it is the
Director (HR) who is competent.
9. This according to him, is because of delegation of power
issued by the respondent Company, stipulates the Director (HR) as the
appointing authority and the Director (Technical) as the Disciplinary
authority to impose minor penalty and major penalty other than
compulsory retirement, dismissal and removal, whereas the Director
(HR) is competent to impose penalty of compulsory retirement,
dismissal and removal as such being an authority to impose higher
penalty, which shall be competent to issue the charge sheet under Rule
14 of the Rules of 1965.
10. According to Mr. Dalal, the issue in hand is covered by the
judgment of this Court in the case of M.K. Saini v. IPGCL & Ors.,
W.P.(C) 202/2017, decided on January 10, 2017.
11. Mr. Anunaya Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner in W.P.(C) 3495/2021 would submit that the petition has
been filed challenging the issuance of charge sheets to the petitioner,
on two counts; firstly, that the Director (Technical) is not the
Competent Authority having the power or jurisdiction to issue the
charge sheets in question. Therefore, since the very issuance of charge
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
Signing Date:19.01.2022
22:17:46
sheets is illegal, all further proceedings necessarily have to fail and
deserve to be quashed. Secondly, that the issuance of charge sheet is
actuated by gross mala fide on the part of respondent No.1 and its
Senior Officers and therefore, independently on this ground as well,
the charge sheets deserve to be quashed.
12. Insofar as the question of competency of Director (Technical)
to issue charge sheets is concerned, the submission of Mr. Mehta was
similar to the one which I have noted above, i.e., the Disciplinary
Authority to impose minor penalty and major penalty other than
compulsory retirement, dismissal and removal on Group 'A'
employee, is the concerned Director. Further, the competent
Disciplinary Authority to impose a major penalty of compulsory
retirement, removal and dismissal on Group 'A' employee (other than
General Manager or equivalent Officer / Company Secretary), is
Director (HR).
13. According to him, the Delegation of Powers ('DOP' for short)
under the service rules is clear and bears no ambiguity. Therefore,
once the service rules designate a particular authority as having
jurisdiction to impose a particular penalty upon an employee, it is that
authority and that authority only which has the power or jurisdiction to
impose such penalty. No other authority, even if it is equivalent in
stature and seniority to the designated authority, can be said to be
competent to impose such penalty.
14. He further qualifies his submission by stating that the
proceedings for imposition of the penalty in question can be
commenced only by the authority competent to impose the said
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
Signing Date:19.01.2022
22:17:46
penalty. The disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated by an
authority which is not competent to eventually impose the penalty in
question. It is only the Disciplinary Authority which is competent to
impose the penalty in question which can initiate disciplinary
proceedings in relation to imposition of such a penalty and continue
the proceedings to their logical conclusion.
15. The only exception to the Rule is provided by an explanation
which provides that the authority competent to impose major penalty
can also impose minor penalty. No other exception to the Rule is
provided under the service rules. Hence, the petitioner, being Senior
Manager (Technical) at the relevant point of time, the concerned
Director in the petitioner's case would be Director (Technical), who is
the only competent authority to initiate minor penalty proceedings and
major penalty proceedings other than compulsory retirement, removal
and dismissal. Mr. Mehta would submit that therefore, it necessarily
follows that it is only the Director (HR) who could have issued the
higher of the major penalties under Rule 11 of the Rules of 1965 and
hence, only he could have issued the charge sheets in question.
16. Mr. Mehta has also relied upon the judgment in the case of
M.K. Saini (supra). That apart, he also relied upon the judgment of
the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. B. V.
Gopinath & Ors., (2014) 1 SCC 351.
17. On the other hand, Mr. R. K. Vats, learned counsel appearing
for the respondents would justify the action of the respondents by
contending that the charge sheet has been rightly issued by the Director
(Technical), inasmuch as the Director (Technical) is also the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
Signing Date:19.01.2022
22:17:46
controlling authority in respect of the petitioners. He has the power,
authority and jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceedings under
Rule 14 of the Rules of 1965. He heavily relied upon the DOP for
disciplinary proceedings as applicable to IPGCL / PPCL. The DOP
specifies Director (HR) as the appointing authority of all Group 'A'
posts (except GM and equivalent posts and Company Secretary) and in
respect of the said posts, the Director (concerned) is detailed as the
Competent Authority for imposition of minor and major penalties
except compulsory retirement, removal and dismissal under Rule 11 of
the Rules of 1695.
18. Undeniably, the petitioners, at the relevant time, were holding
the post of Deputy Manager (Technical) and Senior Manager
(Technical) which are Group 'A' posts and were working under the
Director (Technical) and were also reporting to Director (Technical)
through GM (Technical). As such, the Director concerned would be
the Director (Technical), as would be revealed from a reading of the
DOP in the light of the footnote explanation. He stated, the term
Disciplinary Authority has been defined under Rule 2(g) of the Rules
of 1965 to mean ―an authority, who is competent to impose minor as
well as major penalties as detailed under Rule 11 of the Rules of
1965‖.
19. He also relied upon the Rule 13 (2) of the Rules of 1965 which
contemplate the Disciplinary Authority competent under these rules
may impose any of the penalties specified in Clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule
11 and institute disciplinary proceedings against any government
servant for the imposition of any of the penalties specified in Clause
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
Signing Date:19.01.2022
22:17:46
(v) to (ix) of Rule 11 notwithstanding that such Disciplinary
Authority is not competent under these rules to impose any of the latter
penalties.
20. He stated that the Director (Technical) had the requisite
authority, power and jurisdiction to initiate the major penalty
proceedings and to pass orders for appointment of Inquiry Officer in
respect thereof. That apart, he stated that no rule has been brought on
record prescribing that in case of Group 'A' posts / technical, the
appointing authority / Director (HR) alone would be the Competent
Authority to institute the disciplinary / major penalty proceedings. In
substance, it is his plea that Rule 2(g) read with Rules 11 and 13 of the
Rules of 1965, in fact, prescribe otherwise. He also relied upon the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of P.V. Srinivas Sastry &
Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (1993) 1 SCC 419 in support of his
submission.
21. Insofar as the judgment in the case of M.K. Saini (supra) on
which much reliance has been placed by the counsel for the
petitioner(s) is concerned, his submission was that the same does not
support the petitioners' case that the appointing authority / Director
(HR) alone would be competent to institute disciplinary / major
penalty proceedings against the holder of the Group 'A' posts. Rather,
the said judgment supports the respondents' case, as it has been held
therein that when inquiry proceeding commences, it is not known
whether major penalty or minor penalty will be imposed on the charge
sheeted officer, and therefore, at that stage, the issuance of charge
sheet by the higher authority (Director (HR) in that case), is ordinarily
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
Signing Date:19.01.2022
22:17:46
and rightly justified.
22. Further, the observations in M.K. Saini (supra) were rendered
in the facts of that case. He seeks the dismissal of the writ petitions.
23. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, and noted
the issue, before I answer the same, it is necessary to answer the
preliminary submission made by Mr. Dalal that G. Srikumar, Senior
Manager (HR), who is working in PPCL is not competent to file the
counter affidavit. An additional affidavit has been filed by G. Srikumar
by stating that he was employee with the PPCL in 2010. The two
companies, i.e., IPGCL and PPCL are public utility companies under
the Government of NCT of Delhi. Both companies are managed by the
recruitees, either recruited in IPGCL or PPCL, wherever needed,
irrespective of the origin of the employees, i.e., IPGCL or PPCL.
24. Vide office order dated June 17, 2019 issued with approval of
the Competent Authority, the work of Disciplinary Cell of IPGCL was
assigned to him. He was aware of the facts and circumstances of the
writ petition and as such, was competent to swear, verify and sign the
counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent No.1.
25. Further, the manpower structure of both IPGCL / PPCL was
restructured vide Board resolution dated February 15, 2012 as
combined sanctioned strength and promotions in both IPGCL / PPCL
are affected in a combined manner, irrespective of the origin of
employee, i.e., DVB, IPGCL or PPCL. In view of above, he is
competent and duly authorized to depose, verify and sign the counter
affidavit. Having noted the contents of the additional affidavit, the
plea of Mr. Dalal is liable to be rejected.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
Signing Date:19.01.2022
22:17:46
26. There is no dispute that the present petition is under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. Apart from what has been stated by
G. Srikumar, it is clear that he has also looked after the work of the
Disciplinary Cell of IPGCL. In any case, he has sworn the affidavit on
the basis of the record, and as such can file the same. I do not find
any illegality in G. Srikumar filing the counter affidavit on behalf of
IPGCL. Mr. Dalal has not shown any rule, regulation debarring the
filing of affidavit by any employee of PPCL.
27. Before I answer the issue which arises for consideration in
these writ petitions, I shall reproduce the DOP as annexed by the
respondents along with their counter affidavit as under:
"Indraprastha Power Generation Company Limited
&
Pragati Power Corporation Limited
Delegation of Power for Disciplinary Proceedings
PART-IV
S. Description of the Appoin Competent Competent Competent Appellate Revisionary
N -Post ting Authority for Authority Authority for Authority Authority
o Author imposition of for imposition of under Rule 29
ity Minor imposition Major (vi) of CCS
penalties of Major penalties of (CCA) Rules,
vide Rule 11 penalties Compulsory 1965
of CCS except retirement,
(CCA) Rules, Compulsor Removal and
1965 y Dismissal
retirement, vide Rule 11
Removal of CCS
and (CCA) Rules,
Dismissal ) 1965
vide Rule
11 of CCS
(CCA)
Rules, 1965
1 Group "A" MD Director MD MD for Board of
General Manager (Concerned) penalties IPGCL/PPCL
and equivalent ** imposed by
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
Signing Date:19.01.2022
22:17:46
posts Director
Board for
IPGCL/PPC
L for
penalties
imposed by
MD
2 Group "A" MD MD MD Board of Board of
Company IPGCL/PPC IPGCL/PPCL
Secretary L
3 All Group "A" Direct Director Director Director MD -do-
Posts except or (Concerned) (Concerned) (HR)
posts mentioned (HR) ** **
above at Sl.No.1
&2
4 All Group "B" Direct GM Director Director Director MD
Posts or (Concerned) (Concerned) (HR) (Concerned)
(HR) ** ** for penalties
imposed by
GM
MD for Board of
penalties IIPGCL /
imposed by PPCL
Director
5 All Group "C" GM(H DGM GM GM (HR) GM Director (Con)
Posts R) (Concerned) (Concerned) (Concerned)
** ** for penalties
imposed by MD
DGM
(Concerned)
Director
(Concerned)
** for MD
penalties
imposed by
GM
(Concerned)
*
6 All Group "D" GM Manager DGM GM(HR) DGM GM
Posts (HR) (Concerned) (Concerned) (Concerned) (Concerned)
** ** for penalties
imposed by
Manager
(Concerned)
GM
(Concerned)
for penalties Director
imposed by (Con.)
DGM
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
Signing Date:19.01.2022
22:17:46
(Concerned)
Director
(HR) for
penalties MD
imposed by
GM (HR)
** Officer under whom the incumbents is presently, working i.e. to
illustrate, if a vehicle driver is working in store department then GM
(Store)/DGM (Store) will be the concerned.
Note:
(a) The various authorities cited above are defined on the basis of
initial scale of a post and not on the basis of time bound scales
awarded to the employees later.
(b) The authority competent to impose major penalties can also
impose minor penalties.‖
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
Signing Date:19.01.2022
22:17:46
(Technical) can initiate disciplinary proceedings is covered by the
provisions of Rule 13 (2) of the Rules of 1965 which I reproduce as
under:
―13. Authority to institute proceedings
(1) The President or any other authority empowered by him by
general or special order may -
(a) institute disciplinary proceedings against any Government
servant;
(b) direct a disciplinary authority to institute disciplinary
proceedings against any Government servant on whom that
disciplinary authority is competent to impose under these rules any
of the penalties specified in rule 11.
(2) A disciplinary authority competent under these rules to impose
any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of rule 11 may
institute disciplinary proceedings against any Government servant
for the imposition of any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to
(ix) of rule 11 notwithstanding that such disciplinary authority is
not competent under these rules to impose any of the latter
penalties.‖
31. The above Rule makes it clear that the Disciplinary Authority
is competent to impose any of the penalties specified in Clauses (i) to
(iv) of Rule 11, and may institute disciplinary proceedings against any
government servant for the imposition of any of the penalties specified
in Clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 11 notwithstanding that such Disciplinary
Authority is not competent under these Rules to impose any of the
latter penalties.
32. In other words, even though the Director (Technical) in terms
of the DOP is not competent to impose major penalties of compulsory
retirement, dismissal and removal on a Group 'A' employee (other
than General Manager or equivalent posts and Company Secretary), he
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
Signing Date:19.01.2022
22:17:46
is competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a Group 'A'
employee (other than General Manager or equivalent posts and
Company Secretary) for imposition of major penalties as specified in
Clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 11 of the Rules of 1965.
33. Mr. Vats is also justified in relying upon the judgment of the
Supreme Court in P.V. Srinivas Sastry & Ors. (supra) wherein in
paragraphs 4 to 6 it was held as under:
―4. Article 311(1) says that no person who is a member of a
civil service of the Union or an all-India service or a civil
service of a State or holds civil post under the Union or a
State ―shall be dismissed or removed by an authority
subordinate to that by which he was appointed‖. Whether
this guarantee includes within itself the guarantee that even
the disciplinary proceeding should be initiated only by the
appointing authority? It is well known that departmental
proceeding consists of several stages: the initiation of the
proceeding, the inquiry in respect of the charges levelled
against that delinquent officer and the final order which is
passed after the conclusion of the inquiry. Article 311(1)
guarantees that no person who is a member of a civil
service of the Union or a State shall be dismissed or
removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he
was appointed. But Article 311(1) does not say that even the
departmental proceeding must be initiated only by the
appointing authority. However, it is open to Union of India
or a State Government to make any rule prescribing that
even the proceeding against any delinquent officer shall be
initiated by an officer not subordinate to the appointing
authority. Any such rule shall not be inconsistent with
Article 311 of the Constitution because it will amount to
providing an additional safeguard or protection to the
holder of a civil post. But in absence of any such rule, this
right or guarantee does not flow from Article 311 of the
Constitution. It need not be pointed out that initiation of a
departmental proceeding per se does not visit the officer
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
Signing Date:19.01.2022
22:17:46
concerned with any evil consequences, and the framers of
the Constitution did not consider it necessary to guarantee
even that to holders of civil posts under the Union of India
or under the State Government. At the same time this will
not give right to authorities having the same rank as that of
the officer against whom proceeding is to be initiated to
take a decision whether any such proceeding should be
initiated. In absence of a rule, any superior authority who
can be held to be the controlling authority, can initiate such
proceeding.
5. In the case of State of M.P. v. Shardul Singh [(1970) 1
SCC 108] the departmental enquiry had been initiated
against the Sub-Inspector of Police by the Superintendent of
Police, who sent his enquiry report to the Inspector-
General, who was the appointing authority. The Inspector-
General of Police dismissed the officer concerned from the
service of the State Government. That order was challenged
on the ground that the initiation of the departmental enquiry
by the Superintendent of Police was against the mandate of
Article 311(1) of the Constitution. This contention was
accepted by the High Court. But this Court said: (SCC p.
112, para 10)
―... we are unable to agree with the High Court that
the guarantee given under Article 311(1) includes
within itself a further guarantee that the disciplinary
proceedings resulting in dismissal or removal of a
civil servant should also be initiated and conducted
by the authorities mentioned in that Article.‖
6. Reliance was placed on behalf of the appellants on the
judgment of this Court in the case of Scientific Adviser to
the Ministry of Defence v. S. Daniel [1990 Supp SCC 374 :
1991 SCC (L&S) 355 : (1990) 2 SCR 440 : (1991) 15 ATC
799] . From the aforesaid judgment it shall appear that
Rule 13 of the Central Civil Services (Classification,
Control and Appeal) Rules, which was under consideration
specifically provided:
―13. Authority to institute proceedings.-- (1) The
President or any other authority empowered by him
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
Signing Date:19.01.2022
22:17:46
by general or special order may--
(a) institute disciplinary proceedings against any
Government servant;‖
Although Article 311 of the Constitution does not speak as
to who shall initiate the disciplinary proceedings but, as
already stated above, that can be provided and prescribed
by the rules. But if no rules have been framed, saying as to
who shall initiate the departmental proceedings, then on the
basis of Article 311 of the Constitution it cannot be urged
that it is only the appointing authority and no officer
subordinate to such authority can initiate the departmental
proceeding. In the present case, it was not brought to our
notice that any rule prescribes that the Accountant General,
who is the appointing authority, alone could have initiated a
departmental proceeding.‖
34. In fact, I find that the proceedings against the petitioner in
W.P.(C) 890/2020 have culminated in a minor penalty of his reduction
to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by one stage for a period of
two years with cumulative effect. So, in fact, the penalty being a
minor penalty, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner with the
issuance of charge sheet by the Director (Technical) and not by
Director (HR).
35. Similarly, I have been informed by Mr. Mehta that the
petitioner in W.P.(C) 3495/2021, who has since retired, has been
imposed with the penalty of reduction in pension for three years which
mean, it is not a penalty of compulsory retirement, dismissal or
removal which the Director (Technical) could not have been imposed.
In this case as well, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner.
36. Mr. Mehta during his submission has referred to the judgment
of the Supreme Court in B.V.Gopinath (supra) to contend that the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
Signing Date:19.01.2022
22:17:46
authority initiating the disciplinary proceedings must not only take a
decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings but also ensure the charges
are also framed by him and as such he should be clear that the charges
shall entail the penalty of compulsory retirement, dismissal and
removal. In such a scenario, the Director (Technical), who could not
have been imposed such penalties, could not have issued charge sheet.
I am not in agreement with the said submission of Mr. Mehta for the
simple reason that in B.V.Gopinath (supra), the Supreme Court was
concerned with the issue that the Competent Authority shall not only
decide the hold of disciplinary proceedings against a Government
servant but also, to approve the charges framed against the government
servant. The said issue does not arise for consideration in this writ
petition. Hence, the reliance on B.V.Gopinath (supra) is misplaced.
37. During their submissions Mr. Dalal and Mr. Mehta have
heavily relied upon the judgment of this Court in M.K. Saini (supra).
Suffice to state, in M.K. Saini (supra) the challenge was to the order of
the Disciplinary Authority dated May 22, 2014 and Appellate
Authority dated May 15, 2015 by which the petitioner therein was
imposed a minor penalty of reduction of pay scale for one year with
consequence of postponing his future increments of pay and on expiry
of the period, the petitioner was to regain the original seniority in the
higher grade. The plea advanced in the said case was that the charge
sheet in the said case was issued by the Director (HR), who did not
have the jurisdiction and who also passed the order dated May 22,
2014, inasmuch as, as per the service rules, the Director concerned
should be the Disciplinary Authority. As the petitioner held the post of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
Signing Date:19.01.2022
22:17:46
Assistant Manager (Technical), the Director (Technical) should have
been the Disciplinary Authority and not the Director (HR). The Court
negated the plea by holding in paragraph 4 as under:
―4. I have gone through the relevant rules of the respondent
no.1 / employer pertaining to disciplinary proceedings to be
held against the employees of the respondent no.1, and it is
found that as per these rules, so far as the minor penalty
proceedings are concerned, a charge sheet has to be issued
by the concerned Director but for major penalty
proceedings, charge sheet should be issued by the Director
(HR) and which position was held by Mr. Azimul Haque.
When inquiry proceedings commence, it is not known
whether a major penalty or a minor penalty will be imposed
on the chargesheeted officer, and therefore, at that stage
ordinarily and rightly it is the higher authority which issues
the charge sheet and which is the Director (HR) in the
present case. If in the facts of this case the petitioner by the
appellate authority has not been given a major penalty but
only has been given a minor penalty, the same will however
not mean that inquiry proceedings conducted against the
petitioner were without jurisdiction. Admittedly, the
Director (HR) was the authority who was the disciplinary
authority with respect to major penalty proceedings against
the officers such as the petitioner, who held the Group A
post, and therefore, I do not find that departmental
proceedings in this case are without jurisdiction as is
sought to be argued on behalf of the petitioner.‖
38. Suffice to state, the reasoning given by the coordinate Bench
of this Court was, since Director (HR) being a higher authority, was
competent to impose a higher punishment and as such, can issue
charge sheet and impose a minor penalty and the same cannot said to
be without jurisdiction. Suffice to state, the said judgment was in the
facts of that case and has no bearing insofar as the issue which arises
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
Signing Date:19.01.2022
22:17:46
for consideration in these writ petitions.
39. In view of my above discussion, I do not see any merit in the
petitions, the same are dismissed. No costs.
40. It is clarified that this Court has not commented on the orders
of penalty passed on the charge sheets.
CM APPL. 2874/2020 in W.P.(C) 890/2020
CM APPL. 10588/2021 in W.P.(C) 3495/2021
In view of the dismissal of the writ petitions as above, these
applications are also dismissed.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
JANUARY 19, 2022/aky
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
Signing Date:19.01.2022
22:17:46
