IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J.
Rajeev Agarwal - Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Others - Respondents
W.P.(C). No. 89 of 2019 & CM. APPLs. Nos. 486 & 14962 of 2019
Decided On : 20-08-2019
PETITIONER - [KEYWORD] - SUBJECT - ACT SECTION LIST - SUMMARY
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a senior officer of Petronet LNG Limited (PLL), a joint venture company formed by the Government of India, seeks mandamus for quashing of ex-parte report of Inquiry Committee and charge-sheet issued to him. He alleges highhandedness of corrupt officers within the company and victimization for being a whistleblower against financial corruption. PLL is a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, and the writ petition is maintainable.
Finding of the Court:
1. The charge-sheet issued to the petitioner was not approved by the Disciplinary Authority (Board of Directors) and is non-est in the eyes of law. The disciplinary process must germinate from the Board of PLL, and the approval of the charge-sheet by MD & CEO is illegal and void. 2. The constitution of the Inquiry Committee without the approval of the Board of PLL is illegal and without jurisdiction. 3. The findings of the Inquiry Committee are not based on evidence but on conjecture and are tainted with bias. 4. The petitioner's challenge to the charge-sheet and inquiry proceedings is justified, and he is granted liberty to file a response within three weeks. The respondent is directed to consider the response and pass an order as per law.
Issues: 1. Maintainability of the writ petition. 2. Validity of the charge-sheet and inquiry proceedings. 3. Findings of the Inquiry Committee.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Disciplinary Authority in PLL is the Board of Directors, and any disciplinary action must be initiated by them. The approval of the charge-sheet by MD & CEO is illegal and void. 2. The constitution of the Inquiry Committee without the approval of the Board of PLL is illegal and without jurisdiction. 3. The findings of the Inquiry Committee must be based on evidence and not on conjecture or bias.
Final Decision: The writ petition is disposed of. The Chief Vigilance Commissioner is directed to inquire into the allegations of corruption against respondent no. 6. The petitioner is granted liberty to file a response to the findings of the Inquiry Authority within three weeks. The respondent is directed to consider the response and pass an order as per law.
JUDGMENT :
1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks mandamus for quashing of ex-parte report of Inquiry Committee dated 18.12.2018 and charge-sheet dated 21.08.2018 issued to the petitioner and further seeks direction to the respondents to hold CBI/CVC Inquiry against the respondent no.6 for financial corruption being committed by the said respondent.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, who is an officer of President level and senior most permanent employee of the company, Petronet LNG Limited, is the victim of highhandedness OF corrupt officers present within the company. Since the petitioner is a whistle blower against the corruption and has made various financial corruption charges against the respondent no.6, he being in the commanding position victimizing the petitioner without any rhyme and reason so that the petitioner be kept silence against the corruption.
3. The Petronet LNG Limited is a joint venture company formed by the Government of India to import LNG and set up LNG terminals in the country. It involves India’s 4 leading central public undertaking companies namely GAIL, ONGC, IOCL & BPCL and these four PSU’s have 50% share equity in the Petronet LNG Limited, thus, falls within the definition of ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. As per section 17.3.2 of HR policies of Petronet LNG Limited, the person equal to the post of Vice President and above is entitled for one club membership. The petitioner being in the position of senior Vice President applied for one club membership and the company made direct payment to the club and thereby he was allowed to take one club membership by the company itself in the year 2013 as per the prevailing rules. The said company invited a tender for 03.08.2015 for construction of one LNG storage tank at Dahej. Three parties purchased the tender documents and out of that, 2 bids were received on 31.03.2016. One bid was received from M/s L&T Hydrocarbon Engineering Limited and another was from M/s IHI Corporation, Japan. Since the bid of M/s L&T Hydrocarbon Engineering Limited did not meet technical eligibility criteria, its bid was rejected. The only single qualified bid of M/s IHI Corporation, Japan was opened on 10.05.2016 and it was found that the bidder had quoted around Rs.640 crore EPC (Engineering, Procurement and Construction) costs (without taxes and duties). The petitioner being the member and the other members of the Tender Committee and the Director (Technical) and Director (Finance) objected to this high value tender, comparing the same bidder had been awarded contract for construction of two LNG storage tank at Dahej for Rs.1042 crore and, therefore, value of one tank is around Rs.521 crore. The petitioner as well as the others of the tender committee along with both Directors mentioned above were fully justified in objecting the same as prima facie the tender for Rs.640 crore was very high. The respondent no.6 being MD & CEO of the company instead of accepting the recommendation of tender committee, recommended to award the tender for Rs.537.50 crore. However, M/s IHI Corporation, Japan did not agree with the present value of the tender and, accordingly, it was cancelled and the tender was re-invited. Since the tender was cancelled due to the stand taken by the tender committee of which the petitioner was also a member, the respondent no.6 became annoyed with the petitioner. Despite, outstanding career of the petitioner throughout his service, his annual performance report 2016-2017 was lowered from outstanding to good and he was transferred to Dahej from Headquarter, Delhi without having any position of President level at Dahej. Respondent no.6 favoured one Mr. Pushp Khetrapal who was a President (O&M) and also Chief Ethical Officer (Chief Vigilance Officer) in the company and he was made President (BD & Projects) and his reporting also got changed from Director (Technical) to Director (Finance) in order to promote unethi
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.