Agarwal, the impugned orders including the charge sheet dated December 13, suffers from the vice of non application of mind. Interestingly, the Presenting Officer in the sitting on June 12, , submitted two copies of written briefs to the Inquiry Officer. It is stated that he visited Madras on May 26, to May 30, for which all required arrangements including tickets etc were made by the Madras Refinery Ltd, Madras. He seeks the dismissal of the writ petition. This Court is of the view that the petitioner having taken voluntary retirement in the year and the penalty which W. The petitioner did not join duties after November 22, , but on the contrary, requested for further extension of leave vide a telegram dated December 01, on the grounds of his own sickness from November 25, On August 22, , the petitioner received another letter from the Guwahati Refinery whereby he was asked to rejoin his duties latest by August 24,
Suffice to state, he had sent a letter dated April 18, wherein he has explained that since March 16, , he has been working for the Joint Secretary M , in Charge of Vigilance for Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas at New Delhi in connection with a vigilance case investigation and in respect thereof, he had already submitted his preliminary report on March 31, On receipt of the same, he vide his communication dated August 12, apprised the Authorities at Guwahati Refinery that he is in the process of compilation and final typing of his final report on the investigation assigned by the Ministry and he be allowed to report in the next week. The Inquiry Officer gave only one of the copies to the petitioner on the alleged ground that the petitioner’s copy will be given to him when he would submit his written brief. 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. Agarwal, on denial of documents is concerned, there is no dispute that, some of the documents, whose copies were not given, were given in inspection.
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. On receipt of the said letter, the Corporation forthwith informed the Ministry through its letter NO.
Thereafter, yet another opportunity was given to him to report for duty by August 24,which was not complied with. That apart, this Court is of the view, that there is no cver, issued by the corporation authorizing him to work in the Ministry, as was done in the past.
The Ministry informed the Corporation through its letter dated March 3, that the investigation has yet to take place for ijvalid the request was made in December, and requested the Corporation to advise the petitioner to get in touch with the Ministry immediately in this connection.
The petitioner vide his communication dated February 20, requested the Inquiry Officer that no witness should be examined on that date.
He was also advised to resume duty at Guwahati Refinery at the earliest and cooperate with the enquiry proceedings. Even on the next date of hearing i. After considering the enquiry report and the petitioner’s representation and other related factors, the Disciplinary Authority by an order dated June 26, awarded the punishment of withholding of four annual increments due on January 1,January 1,January 1, and January 1, with cumulative effect to the petitioner.
Corporate Logo : IOCL India : Oil and Gas Industry
The petitioner referred to a Medical Certificate dated March 14, whereby he was declared medically fit by the attending Doctor in his home town at Gwalior to resume duties on March 16, The Court cannot embark upon re-appreciating the evidence or weighing the same like an appellate authority. The services of an alternate officer were again offered. It was also ordered that the proceedings of the enquiry be completed by June 30, Degala Suryanarayana AIR SC has inter-alia held, the court invwlid exercising jurisdiction of judicial review would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings excepting W.
I may note, the plea of the petitioner that Mr.
The final decision is beyond the judicial scrutiny. D-2 have been referred to by the Inquiry Officer to be the following: Aggarwal that the penalty of stoppage of increments could not be with retrospective effect, the same is also appealing as I note, one of the impugned order was passed on June 26, whereby the four increments of the petitioner have been stopped.
Be that as it may, the Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry. It is his case, on November 30,he applied to Mr. The chargesheet culminated in the punishment of withholding of four increments, which presupposes that the petitioner was on the rolls of the Corporation. In fact, I note the petitioner has cross examined the MW’s without demur.
Yogendra Singh vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. on 20 December,
It was further made clear to the Ministry that the Petitioner has not been assigned any jnvalid in connection with the vigilance case of the Ministry, and that he cannot be assigned any task either in the Corporation or outside the Corporation. When will IOCL send a call letter for a summer internship? 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.
The petitioner did not join ldtter after November 22,but on the contrary, requested for further extension of leave vide a telegram dated December 01, on the grounds of his own sickness from November 25, It is also a settled law, that only those documents which have been relied upon, by the employer need to be given.
On receipt of the same, he vide his communication dated August 12, apprised the Authorities at Guwahati Refinery that he is in the process of compilation and final typing of his final report on the investigation assigned by the Ministry and he be allowed to report in the next week. The Chief Manager HRHeadquarter of the respondent Corporation vide his letter dated October 12, informed the Ministry that they had never deputed or allowed the petitioner to assist the Ministry in the said investigation.
Joseph, Additional Iol Manager HR of the respondent Corporation to the Joint Secretary M of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas that on contacting Guwahati Refinery, he has been informed that the petitioner was on leave for about a month and the Guwahati Refinery are trying to get in touch with him at his leave address. While working so, on December 13, the petitioner received a charge sheet whereby certain charges of misconduct were leveled against him.
In response, vide office order dated November 18,the petitioner was directed to oetter to GM, Guwahati Refinery on or before December 04, Related Questions How do I write a cover letter when applying for an internship?
Later, he was replaced by another Inquiry Officer. Kakati onvalid sanction of seven days W.
It is stated, by its letter dated December 12, the respondent Corporation informed the petitioner that he was being permitted to rejoin ltter without prejudice to the decision of the Corporation in respect of period of his absence.