Insofar as plea of perversity is concerned, suffice to state, the primary plea of the petitioner against the charges framed against him being; 1 that he was working for the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas; 2 he has been informing the progress of the investigation to Mr. When the petitioner had not examined himself, it was obligatory on the part of the Inquiry officer to question on the circumstances appearing against him in the W. The Enquiry thereafter proceeded with the participation of the petitioner. The final decision is beyond the judicial scrutiny. Having said that, the question which arises is what relief the petitioner is entitled to; whether the matter should be remanded back to the Appellate Authority to pass fresh order. It is also his case that in the said letter, the Joint Secretary requested the Chairman of the respondent Corporation to depute the petitioner for the said purpose. In fact, I note the petitioner has cross examined the MW’s without demur.
In his report, the Inquiry officer has proved the charges against the petitioner, which resulted in the order of penalty dated June 26, , as referred to above. It is not a case of no evidence at all. Kakati about his disease of Spondilitis-C-Sciacitia and therefore, requested him to extend his sick leave upto January end for treatment. On November 11, , the first sitting of the enquiry was held at which the petitioner was not present, and the proceedings were accordingly adjourned. The Inquiry Officer also referred to 73 other documents produced by the petitioner herein. He was also informed that even the medical certificate dated March 14, furnished by him certified him to be fit for resuming duties from March 16, , and that inspite of this he had not resumed duties. On November 12, , vide a telegram, the petitioner applied to Mr.
That apart, the proceedings are in violation of Rule 31 3 of the CDA Rules, of the Indian Oil Corporation, inasmuch the Inquiry Officer was required to ask the petitioner to present his defence and produce his evidence. He seeks the dismissal of the writ petition. The Presenting Officer denied the same on the ground that they are confidential.
I uphold the penalty to the extent of withholding of increments as on January 01, and January 01, Kakati for sanction of seven days W.
Winner of the Agami Prize for democratising access to law. By a letter dated April 30,the petitioner again ioxl for extension of leave till June 15, He was also informed that even the medical certificate dated March 14, furnished by him ingalid him to be fit for resuming duties from March 16,and that inspite of this he had not resumed duties.
What might be the issue? Joseph advising the petitioner to call on the Ministry in connection with the request received from J. It is also his case that he apprised the status of the assignment to Mr.
The order of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are bad in law and have been passed in mechanical manner without application of mind. The appeal by the petitioner was considered by the Chairman of the respondent Corporation, who by an order dated November 26, rejected the appeal and observed that the Charge sheeted officer had not brought out any ground or fact or any extenuating circumstance that may warrant review of order invalir June 26, passed by the Disciplinary Authority.
Enquiry proceedings were thereafter held on December 08, where the petitioner requested for time to prepare for the enquiry. If that be so, the Enquiry Officer was required to question the W. It is stated, in response, the petitioner submitted a representation dated September 12, to the GM Guwahati Refinery appealing to him to withdraw the letter dated September 08, Despite being conveyed vide letter dated August 04, and acknowledging the receipt of the said letter, he did not report for duty on August 13, In other words, he, in-toto agreed with the view of the Disciplinary Authority, which is impermissible in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Director MarketingLettsr.
A perusal of the aforesaid Rules would reveal that in an eventuality, the Charged Officer does not examine himself then an obligation has been put on the Enquiry Officer to question him on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the purpose of enabling the employee to explain circumstances appearing in the evidence against him.
The same were not produced by the respondent nor shown to the petitioner. The petitioner then preferred an appeal dated November 05, addressed to the Chairman against the order dated September 08, wherein his name was struck off from the rolls of the Corporation invwlid.
He, however, did not mention the expected date of his reporting back for duty nor he sent any proof or particulars of his sickness, and again continued to be absent without enquiring whether his leave had been sanctioned or not. Agarwal that, the Appellate Authority has not applied its mind is concerned, the same is appealing. He infalid requested the respondent for furnishing copy of the documents since the respondent neither supplied the invlid documents nor given any reply.
He also stated that the W. The petitioner on August 27, joined the duties at Guwahati but he was not given work and was kept idle till September 08, No such plea of prejudice can be proved in the absence of evidence. Having noted the stand of the parties during the enquiry proceedings, the finding of the Enquiry Officer and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, insofar as the plea of Mr.
Agarwal that the order dated September 08, would not survive as the petitioner having been reinstated and on his reinstatement, he has been proceeded departmentally is concerned, the same is appealing. In response, vide office order dated November 18,the petitioner was directed to report to GM, Guwahati Refinery on or before December 04, The Enquiry Officer prepared his report dated November 19, wherein he held the petitioner to be guilty of the charges leveled.
Yogendra Singh vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. on 20 December,
The petitioner vide his communication dated February 20, requested the Inquiry Officer that no witness should be examined on that date. Kakati at Guwahati Refinery in continuation of his earlier message of December 20, for extension of his sick leave till his next medical check-up during last week of February, It is his knvalid that vide letter dated February 08,the Inquiry Officer had informed the petitioner that proceedings of inquiry would be held on February 20,February 21, and February 22, While working so, on December 13, the petitioner received a charge sheet whereby certain charges of misconduct were leveled against him.
In fact, I note the petitioner has cross examined the MW’s without demur. The annexures annexed to the letter dated January 03, Ex.