J U D G M E N T

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

1. As an identical issue arises for consideration in these two writ 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

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 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