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. This Court is of the view that the petitioner having taken voluntary retirement in the year and the penalty which W. The department had examined two witnesses and had produced sixteen documents in total to prove the charge against the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer has not taken into consideration the material evidence on record and on the other hand taken into consideration extraneous and foreign material. You can only use alphabets, numbers, fullstop. Can you help me for a summer internship from IOCL? He also requested the respondent for furnishing copy of the documents since the respondent neither supplied the demanded documents nor given any reply.
The respondents in their counter-affidavit have denied the plea of the petitioner that documents have not been given. The said action of the Inquiry officer was arbitrary. Pursuant thereto, one K. Winner of the Agami Prize for democratising access to law. It is their case, since the question of the petitioner’s continued employment was involved, the petitioner was, vide telegram dated April 09, given another opportunity to report for duties latest by April 15, with an explanation for his absence to the satisfaction of the Management, failing which it shall be presumed that he has left the service of the Corporation on his own accord and the case shall be treated as a case of relinquishment from the service without notice from his side and action would be taken as per Rules of the Corporation.
The said action of the Inquiry officer was arbitrary. Agreeing with the lettef passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the Chairman disposed of the appeal. The petitioner on receipt of the same, filed his written explanation dated December 27, thereby W.
To assist him in effective performance of his duties related to Guwahati Refinery, adequate manpower was provided to him at subordinate levels. He also denied that the proceedings were conducted in violation of principles of natural justice.
Enquiry proceedings were leter held on December 08, where the petitioner requested for time to prepare for the enquiry. The Inquiry Officer instead of directing the Presenting Officer to supply the copies of those documents to the petitioner directed to maintain status quo and in view of this order of the Inquiry officer, eleven documents were not supplied to the petitioner, which has caused great prejudice to the petitioner.
The dead giveaway that tells you when Amazon has a better price. The Presenting Officer had put leading questions to MW 1 in order to get answer favourably to the case of the Management.
Corporate Logo : IOCL India : Oil and Gas Industry
The stand of the Inquiry Officer that the personal file of the petitioner lwtter a confidential file need not be shown to the petitioner shows the malice on the part of the Inquiry Officer. How is internship review for IOCL? 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 Cober 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.
He reported at Guwahati Refinery on June 29, By a letter dated April 30,the petitioner again requested for extension invalic leave till June 15, In substance, the challenge in the writ petition is to the orders dated December 08,June ivnalid, and September 08, The Presenting Officer examined MW 1 and the inquiry was adjourned for the next date i.
Even otherwise, it is his case that the petitioner having joined back the services, the order dated September 08, need to be reviewed.
Agarwal, on denial of documents is concerned, there is no dispute that, some of the ijvalid, whose copies were not given, were given in inspection. The respondent has filed their counter affidavit wherein, apart from making some preliminary submissions, it is their case that the petitioner while working leter Maintenance Manager Civil was made In-charge of execution works related to additional facilities required for the refinery and lining up of related civil maintenance works.
In substance, it is his submission that the Inquiry Officer during the course of the inquiry has acted as a Presenting Officer rather than an Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer has overlooked the fact that the material witnesses have been held back by the respondent. After going through the relevant documents, the petitioner had stated all the documents are lnvalid 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.
He, however, did not mention the expected date lettdr his reporting back for duty nor he sent any proof or particulars of his sickness, and again continued to be absent without enquiring whether invald leave had been sanctioned or not. What might be the issue?
It is his case that he apprised all W. On October 23,he submitted a leave application to his Controlling Officer namely Mr. On December 20,the petitioner again gave a telegram informing Mr.
Even on February 21, when the petitioner pointed out to the Inquiry officer that he should get the copy of the examination of the Management Witness held on February 20, and the documents as requested by the petitioner vide his letter dated November 07,which have not been given iocp he should be allowed to inspection of his personal file, which was not ilcl.
Yogendra Singh vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. on 20 December,
The petitioner submitted a representation dated July 30, to the Disciplinary Authority. In response, vide office order dated November 18,the petitioner was directed to report to GM, Guwahati Refinery on or before December 04, During submissions, it has not been pointed out, which were the documents sought for, their relevancy and the prejudice caused for non supply of the same.
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.
But the Inquiry Officer has not done it, thus mandatory Rules 13, 14 and 15 under Clause 31 of the CDA Rules, have been violated, which vitiated the proceedings of inquiry. 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. Accordingly, earned leave from April 01, to April 06, and Extra Ordinary Leave without pay from April 07, to April 30, was sanctioned.