W.P. (C) 7741/2015

Page 1 of 35

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Judgment reserved on: 11 May 2022

Judgment pronounced on: 18 May 2022

+

W.P.(C) 7741/2015 & CM APPLs. 15189/2015, 29403/2015,

4218/2021, 4628/2021, 23761/2021

N.D. TYAGI

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Ravi Gupta, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Mr.Nikunj

Arora,

Mr.Sachin

Jain

and

Mr.Himansh Yadav, Advs.

versus

POWER FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. & ORS..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG and

Mr.A.S. Chandhiok, Sr. Advocate

with Mr. R.K.Joshi, Mr. Ojusya

Joshi,

Mr.

R.V.

Prabhat,

Mr.

Taranjeet Singh Sawhney, Mr.Vinay

Yadav, Mr.Amit Gupta, Mr. Rishav

Dubey and Mr.Sahaj Garg, Advs. for

R-1, 2 and 4.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

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

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001890

W.P. (C) 7741/2015

Page 2 of 35

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

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001890

W.P. (C) 7741/2015

Page 3 of 35

CorporationConsulting 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) p