He also denied that the proceedings were conducted in violation of principles of natural justice. He would state, that the Inquiry Officer has not even discussed the defence set by the petitioner. 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. 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. Kaura would submit that the petitioner was given the copies of general documents exhibited as Ex.
The petitioner in his W. 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. Insofar as the submission with regard to violation of Article 31 14 and 31 15 is concerned, Rule 31 relates to Procedure for Imposing Major Penalties. 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. The Enquiry Officer prepared his report dated November 19, wherein he held the petitioner to be guilty of the charges leveled. By a fax message dated February 16, , he requested W. There is no dispute that vide letter dated November 18, , the petitioner was asked to report back to the Guwahati Refinery and it is a fact that the petitioner did report to the Guwahati Refinery on December 04, and further on his reinstatement he was issued chargesheet.
Free for one month and pay only if you like it. However, the petitioner did not join duties by August 24, The appeal dated September 05 filed by the petitioner was also rejected vide impugned order dated December 08, Be that as it may, on November 05, the petitioner submitted an Appeal to the Chairman of the respondent Corporation against his termination order dated September 08, on which the petitioner received an office order dated November 18, directing the petitioner to report to the General Manager, Guwahati on or before December 04, He also requested the respondent for furnishing copy of the documents since the respondent neither supplied the demanded documents nor given any reply.
I may note, the plea of the petitioner that Mr.
It was also indicated that the view of the petitioner may also be obtained in the matter. After going through the relevant documents, the petitioner had stated all the documents are available and have a direct bearing on the case and therefore, made a request that whatever paper is not marked as confidential, copies of the letters be provided to him.
In response thereto, it is averred that the petitioner has on April 15, sent an express telegram to the respondent, wherein he has stated that he has already given reasons for his overstaying in the leave being medical and had requested the respondent not to take any action till the receipt of detailed reasons.
He also states, that the punishment order dated June 26,could not have been retrospective as it had withheld the increments due on January 01, and January 01, In response to the aforesaid letter dated March 03,the Corporation informed the Ministry through its letter dated March 13, that the petitioner has been absenting from duty for the last months and has not reported back at Guwahati Refinery.
The said communication was followed by a detailed letter dated August 14, by the petitioner reiterating the stand. That apart, this Court is of the view, that there is no order, issued by the corporation authorizing him to work in the Ministry, as was done in the past.
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, What goes on a resume’s cover letter?
What are some of the best sites to apply for internships in India? Joseph wrote back to the Ministry of Petroleum amongst other things that the Corporation has traced out the petitioner to his residential address at Faridabad. The Corporation issued another letter dated July 30, to the Ministry stating that it is not possible to spare the services of the petitioner for the Ministry’s job since he had run away from his duty post at Guwahati Refinery.
Joseph at New Delhi.
Yogendra Singh vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. on 20 December,
After availing one day sick leave cober November 02,the petitioner took a train journey on Sunday morning i. In response, the petitioner sent a telegram which W. 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.
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. It is stated, since the petitioner was continuing with his prolonged and unauthorised absence from Guwahati Refinery, he was advised by a telegram dated February 05, at coverr Faridabad address that his leave beyond November 25, was not sanctioned, and that his continued absence was unauthorized and has been viewed seriously.
No such plea invallid prejudice can be proved in the absence of evidence. The feedback you provide will help us show you more relevant content in the future. There is nothing in the order to show that the Appellate Authority had applied its mind to the grounds raised by the petitioner in his appeal.
In the case in hand, it is noted that the Appellate Authority has simply stated that the Charged Officer in his appeal has not brought out any ground or any extenuating circumstance which may warrant review of order dated June 26, passed by the Disciplinary Authority.
You can invalie use alphabets, numbers, fullstop.
On November 12,vide a telegram, the petitioner applied to Mr. The stand of the Inquiry Officer that the personal file of the petitioner is a confidential file need not be shown to the petitioner shows the malice on the part of the Inquiry Officer.
What is the transfer policy in IOCL for non-executives and what is the process? 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.
Accordingly, earned leave from April 01, to April 06, and Extra Ordinary Leave without pay from April 07, to April 30, was sanctioned. In view of this, the order dated September 08, whereby the petitioner has been said to have deserted his employment and his name was struck off; from the rolls of the Corporation with effect from August 25,has become infructuous.
That apart, he had taken voluntary retirement in the year However, he failed to bring the Co-Officer.