Khushi Bajpai
Published on: 03rd August 2022 at 18:24 IST
According to the Delhi High Court, even though the wrongdoing occurred in the borrowing department, it can still be reported to the parent organization’s competent disciplinary authority once the employee has been returned to his or her parent department.
An appeal against a Single Judge’s decision to deny relief to a man working as an executive director for the Power Finance Corporation Limited was dismissed by a division bench made up of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad. The man was contesting a chargesheet that would have subjected him to disciplinary action in accordance with Rules 28 and 30 of the Power Finance Corporation Limited (conduct disciplinary action).
The appellant was transferred back to PFCL by direction of the assistant general manager-HR in December 2014, whereupon he was appointed executive director (felicitation group).
According to the opinion expressed in the appeal, the fact that the alleged crime was carried out while the petitioner was on deputation does not mitigate the misbehavior that was committed.
In the appeal, the Division Bench noted that the appellant made the claim that he was on deputation and that, upon returning to the parent department, PFCL (the parent organization) could not possibly have brought legal action against him for any incident that occurred while he was on deputation to PFCCL.
Noting that the chargesheet was issued after effective consultation between PFCL and PFCCL at the instance of the Central Vigilance Commission, the Court said:
“Therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in holding that as the writ petitioner was an employee of PFCL, he was temporarily posted to PFCCL, the charge sheet was rightly issued by competent disciplinary authority even though the misconduct was committed by him while serving PFCCL.”
The Courts, hence concluded that since the charges were not vague and the chargesheet was issued by the competent disciplinary authority, the question of interference by High Court did not arise.