On receipt of the same, the petitioner sent a telegraphic message to the respondent to Guwahati Refinery thereby stating that he was reaching Guwahati on August 26, for reporting to the respondent for duty. On October 23, , he submitted a leave application to his Controlling Officer namely Mr. What might be the issue? D-2 have been referred to by the Inquiry Officer to be the following: The Corporation offered the Ministry the services of an alternative Civil Engineer posted in Delhi in place of the petitioner.
In substance, the challenge in the writ petition is to the orders dated December 08, , June 26, and September 08, January 1, and January 1, , which is not harsh and 18 years have passed since the imposition of the punishment and moreover I have upheld the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer holding the charges as proved, it is not a fit case where the matter should be remanded back to the Appellate Authority. Thereafter, yet another opportunity was given to him to report for duty by August 24, , which was not complied with. He remained unauthorizedly absent on the pretext of working with the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, which was without any authority or permission of the Management. In spite of the fact that the Presenting Officer stated that he would do so, the same was never done.
Agarwal that the period between August 25, to December 03, could not have been treated as not on W. The Presenting Officer examined MW 1 and the inquiry was adjourned for the next date i. M of the Ministry; 3 no proof that the petitioner having met Mr. He was reminded invwlid his unauthorized absence for almost 9 months continuously has caused the work to seriously suffer. That apart, it is his submission that the impugned order W.
Thereafter, the petitioner sought extension of leave upto April 30, on the ground of his wife’s mental and physical condition. Joseph on January 07, Even on the next date of hearing i.
Agarwal, the impugned orders including the charge sheet dated December 13, suffers from the vice of non application of mind.
The order of the Invakid Authority and the Appellate Authority are bad in law and have been passed in mechanical manner without application of mind. 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 MarketingW.
The respondent Corporation wrote to the petitioner again on August 17, giving him yet another opportunity to join duties by August 24, What goes on a resume’s cover letter? It is stated, by its letter dated December 12, the respondent Corporation informed the petitioner that he was being permitted to rejoin duty without prejudice to the invakid of the Corporation in respect of period of his absence.
According to the petitioner, he received a letter dated August 04, W.
The final decision is beyond the judicial scrutiny. He also enclosed a medical certificate in that regard. The annexures annexed to the letter dated January 03, Ex.
It is stated that he visited Madras on May 26, to May 30, for which all required arrangements including tickets etc were made by lettwr Madras Refinery Ltd, Madras. Even otherwise, it is his case that the petitioner having joined back the services, the order dated September 08, need to be reviewed. The Inquiry Officer has overlooked the fact that the material witnesses have cpver held back by the respondent. The department had examined two witnesses and had produced sixteen documents in total to prove the charge against the petitioner.
Corporate Logo : IOCL India : Oil and Gas Industry
On October 23,he submitted ihvalid leave application to his Controlling Officer namely Mr. Joseph advising the petitioner to call on the Ministry in connection with the request kocl from J. It is stated, since the petitioner was given various opportunities to join his duties at W. It was also ordered that the proceedings of the enquiry be completed by June 30, The respondents in their counter-affidavit have denied the plea of the petitioner that documents have not been given.
Yogendra Singh vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. on 20 December,
covwr So it necessarily follows, the petitioner should have joined back the Guwahati Refinery, which he had not, as without any order he could not have worked for the Ministry. 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.
This is because you are using invalid characters. Kaura, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand justified the impugned orders, by stating that they have been passed in compliance with the principles of natural justice and the rules.
The penalty to that extent being separable with the penalty of stoppage of increments w. Despite being conveyed vide letter dated August 04, and acknowledging the receipt of the said letter, he did coverr report for duty on August 13, The Presenting Officer denied the same on the ground that they are confidential.
It is his case that he apprised all W.