9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 917 - HC - Companies LawMaintainability of writ petition - proceedings against an officer of President level and senior most permanent employee of the company, Petronet LNG Limited - ex-parte order- petitioner concluded his arguments on the maintainability and submitted that it is obvious that the words Any person or Authority , used in Article 226 of the Constitution of India, are, therefore, not to be confined only to statutory authorities and instrumentalities of the State - HELD THAT - The respondent company is Public Limited Company‟ as per section 4-Memorandum-(1) of Companies Act, 2003. The company was formed as a joint venture company by Government of India in 1998 in pursuance of Cabinet decision on 04.07.1997. Thus, it is an instrumentality of Government because it comes under purview of other authorities of State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India - It is admitted fact that the petitioner did not attend the committee proceedings inspite a number of chance given to him and, therefore, proceedings were concluded ex-parte. The case of the petitioner is that the entire disciplinary proceedings are unconstitutional, void, wrong and against the principles of natural Justice and in contravention of provision of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Validity of ex-parte report of Inquiry Committee dated 18.12.2018 and charge-sheet dated 21.08.2018 issued to the petitioner - holding of CBI/CVC Inquiry against the respondent no.6 for financial corruption being committed by the said respondent - HELD THAT - The present petition has been filed at the stage when the Inquiry report dated 18.12.2018 was sent to the petitioner vide letter dated 24.12.2018 and one weeks‟ time was granted to him to make the representation. It is not in dispute that, at his request, vide letter dated 04.01.2019 he was granted further time to submit his representation by 11.01.2019 against the representation. However, instead of making the representation, the petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the Inquiry report as well as charge-sheet - Further case of the petitioner is that the charge-sheet has been issued by an incompetent authority as it has been issued by the Senior Manager HR; under Section 178 of the Companies Act, 2013 the appointing authority of the petitioner is the Board of Directors. Since the approval of the Board of Directors was not obtained, the charge-sheet is liable to be quashed and finding of guilt by Inquiry committee on the allegedly incompetent charges is violative of principles of natural justices. The charge sheet dated 21.08.2018 was issued to the petitioner and the same was sent through his reporting officer i.e. Director (Technical) and was communicated by Senior Manager HR. It was duly approved by the MD CEO of PLL. The initiation of disciplinary proceedings is in accordance with the applicable rules of the company, including delegation of authority Manual, HR policy amended from time to time and is also not in variance with the Companies Act 2013 and rules thereof - Section 4 of the standard of conducts and performance of the HR Policy (PLL) which is duly approved by the Board of Directors and applicable on the employees including the petitioner clearly lays down the process to be followed by HR department in consultation with the functional head and the MD CEO for any action including disciplinary proceedings against a delinquent employee and powers of the MD CEO (respondent No. 6). Thus, MD and CEO is the competent authority and has full power for initiation of disciplinary action against any officer of PLL. It is pertinent to mention here that during the hearing of the present petition, on 02.07.2019, this court has perused the original file whereby it is established that the MD CEO has approved the issuance of the chargesheet - the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner has no help in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Petition disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Validity of the charge-sheet and the authority of the issuer. 3. Constitution and bias of the Inquiry Committee. 4. Findings of the Inquiry Committee and procedural fairness. 5. Allegations of corruption against respondent no.6. Detailed Analysis: 1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition: The petitioner argued that Petronet LNG Limited (PLL) is a "public limited company" and an instrumentality of the government, thus falling within the purview of "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The court agreed, noting that PLL was formed as a joint venture by the Government of India, with significant financial control by four central government PSUs, and falls under the purview of the CVC. The court referenced several judgments to support this conclusion, including Essar Steel Limited vs. Union of India and Others and Petronet LNG Ltd. vs. Indian Petro Group and Another. Therefore, the court held that the writ petition is maintainable. 2. Validity of the Charge-Sheet and Authority of the Issuer: The petitioner contended that the charge-sheet issued by the Senior Manager HR was invalid as it was not approved by the Board of Directors, the appointing authority under Section 178 of the Companies Act, 2013. The court examined the company's HR policies and delegation of authority manual, which vested disciplinary powers with the MD & CEO in consultation with the head of the HR department. The court found that the charge-sheet was duly approved by the MD & CEO and issued in accordance with the applicable rules. The court also noted that the MD & CEO is authorized to initiate disciplinary proceedings, including the issuance of the charge sheet and appointment of the Inquiry Committee. Thus, the court dismissed the petitioner's arguments on this issue. 3. Constitution and Bias of the Inquiry Committee: The petitioner argued that the Inquiry Committee was constituted without the approval of the Board of Directors and included a subordinate of the complainant (respondent no.6), violating principles of natural justice. The court referenced several judgments emphasizing the importance of unbiased and fair inquiry proceedings, including State of U.P. & Ors vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha and State of Punjab vs. V.K. Khanna & Ors. However, the court found that the Inquiry Committee was constituted in accordance with the company's HR policies and that the petitioner had been given multiple opportunities to present his case but chose not to attend the proceedings. Therefore, the court did not find sufficient grounds to quash the Inquiry Committee's constitution. 4. Findings of the Inquiry Committee and Procedural Fairness: The petitioner challenged the findings of the Inquiry Committee on several grounds, including the alleged unauthorized disclosure of confidential information and improper acquisition of club membership. The court noted that the petitioner had not submitted a response to the Inquiry Committee's findings and had instead chosen to file the writ petition. The court directed the petitioner to file a response to the findings within three weeks and instructed the respondents to consider the same and pass an order as per law. The court also directed the respondents to address the issue of another senior vice president having the same type of club membership without facing similar disciplinary action. 5. Allegations of Corruption Against Respondent No.6: The petitioner, acting as a whistleblower, alleged several instances of corruption against respondent no.6, including awarding contracts to family friends and unauthorized appointments. The court noted that these allegations were not specifically denied by the respondents in their counter affidavits. Given the seriousness of the allegations, the court directed the Chief Vigilance Commissioner to inquire into the allegations made by the petitioner against respondent no.6 and take appropriate action as per law. Conclusion: The court disposed of the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to file a response to the Inquiry Committee's findings within three weeks. The court also directed the Chief Vigilance Commissioner to investigate the corruption allegations against respondent no.6. The applications associated with the writ petition were rendered infructuous and disposed of accordingly.
|
