J U D G M E N T

1. This writ petition has been preferred assailing a chargesheet dated 09 March 2015. In terms of the aforesaid chargesheet, the petitioner who was an Executive Director under the respondents was proposed to be proceeded against in disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the provisions made in Rules 28 and 30 of the Power Finance Corporation Limited (Conduct Discipline and Appeal) Rules1. In the alternative, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the orders dated 22 and 31 July 2015. The petitioner had questioned the authority of the Enquiry Officer to proceed further in the matter in light of a perceived bias and an asserted failure to conduct the enquiry in a fair and impartial manner. The Enquiry Officer who was appointed at the relevant time was one Mr. Geeta Ram. The petitioner had alleged that the manner in which the proceedings had been conducted by Mr. Geeta Ram clearly gave rise to an apprehension of bias and accordingly moved the respondents to change the Enquiry Officer. The aforesaid prayer as addressed has been rejected and turned down by the orders of 22 and 31 July 2015. By the time this petition was taken up for hearing, undisputedly Geeta Ram had ceased to be the Enquiry Officer and, on his passing away, a new Enquiry Officer had come to be appointed. As a consequence to the above, the alternative reliefs which are claimed have for all practical purposes rendered infructuous. That leaves the Court to principally consider the challenge which is raised to the chargesheet alone. For the purposes of disposal of the present writ petition, the following essential facts would merit being noticed.

2. The petitioner was employed as an Executive Director in the Power Finance Corporation Limited2. In 2008, PFCL is stated to have incorporated a wholly owned subsidiary called Power Finance

1 Rules 2 PFCL

Corporation Consulting Limited3. Upon the incorporation of the aforesaid subsidiary, the petitioner was transferred to the newly formed company as its Chief Executive Officer. The relevant extract of the order of 31 March 2008 is reproduced hereinbelow: -

“POWER FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED (H.R.UNIT)

No.2:02:161 March 31, 2008 OFFICE ORDER NO. 46/2008 Sub.: Operationalisation of the subsidiary company for Consultancy Services Consequent upon the incorporation of a Wholly Owned Subsidiary of the Corporation, namely PFC Consulting Limited to promote, organize and carry on Consultancy Services in the related activities of PFC, the services of Shri N.D. Tyagi, ED (CSG) stands transferred to the newly formed company on the existing terms and conditions till further orders with immediate effect. He is designated as Chief Executive Officer.

This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority.

(S. RAVINDRAN)

Manager (HR)”

3. On 02 December 2013, the Assistant General Manager (HR) passed an order transferring the petitioner back to PFCL and posting him as the Executive Director (Facilitation Group). On 29 October 2014, a show cause notice came to be issued calling upon the petitioner to explain why

3 PFCCL

disciplinary action be not initiated against him in light of various infractions which had come to be noticed connected with the administration of the affairs of PFCCL during the period when the petitioner was posted as its Chief Executive Officer. The allegation in the show cause notice was that the petitioner had permitted casual staff to travel on outstation tours without having gotten a transfer / local conveyance / daily allowance policy approved by the competent authority. It was additionally alleged that the petitioner had allowed expenditure and payment of travel related charges claimed by casual staff without having approved or put in place a codified policy with regard to their entitlement to such benefits. The show cause notice alleged that the aforesaid infractions amounted to the petitioner having acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the PFCCL. It was in the aforesaid backdrop that it was