The services of an alternate officer were again offered. On returning from Gwalior, he again reported to the Ministry of Petroleum on March 16, for completion of the investigation assigned and started continuously working with vigilance section of the Ministry. On January 03, , a telegram was sent by Mr. The Inquiry Officer has overlooked the fact that the material witnesses have been held back by the respondent. This procedure to allow the Presenting Officer to examine the witness on February 20, has caused great prejudice to the case of the petitioner. In spite of the said request from the petitioner, the Inquiry Officer allowed the Presenting Officer to start examination. After reporting for work at Guwahati Refinery on June 29, , on November 01, the petitioner applied for sick leave for November 02, in combination of 7 days Special Compensatory off w.
He reported at Guwahati Refinery on June 29, At least to the extent of stoppage of increments dated January 1, and January 1, , the punishment is retrospective. Accordingly, earned leave from April 01, to April 06, and Extra Ordinary Leave without pay from April 07, to April 30, was sanctioned. On receipt of the said letter, the Corporation forthwith informed the Ministry through its letter NO. It is his submission that the report of the Inquiry Officer is perverse, inasmuch as the findings of the Inquiry officer based on no evidence. The petitioner preferred an appeal dated September 05, addressed to the Chairman against the order date June 26, passed by the Disciplinary Authority.
It is the case of the petitioner that while he was working as Maintenance Manager Civil he was, vide order dated April 19, transferred to Guwahati Refinery from Mathura Refinery as Maintenance Manager Civil. The analysis of the documents produced by the respondent is as under: Surely such documents were in the possession of the petitioner, and he could have produced the same. Thereafter, the petitioner remained absent without caring to send any information whatsoever regarding his absence.
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. Accordingly, the cross examination of MW 2 Mr.
According to the petitioner, he received a letter dated August 04, W. The consequence of not seeking such an explanation has been considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Ministry of Finance v. The annexures annexed to the letter dated January 03, Ex.
The said Order was communicated to the petitioner by a letter dated December 08, of the General Manager of the respondent Corporation, which is under challenge in the present petition. Kakati for grant of sick leave with invaoid from November 25, due to his sickness AS rest was advised by his Doctor. The dead giveaway that tells you when Amazon has a better price.
Yogendra Singh vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. on 20 December,
Despite being conveyed vide letter dated August 04, and acknowledging the receipt of the said letter, he did not report covwr duty on August 13, There is no dispute that the charges imposed against the petitioner inter-alia were i that he left Guwahati Refinery without sanction; ii he did not report for duty on February 11, and April 15, ; iii he remained absent innvalid permission with effect from November 04, and continued to remain absent even after receiving telegrams dated February 05,April 09, and letters dated August 04, and August 17, in an unauthorized manner.
He left station and duties at Guwahati Refinery, and instead of returning for duty on November 12, he sent a telegram requesting for W. He also stated that the Enquiry Officer had directed the petitioner to file written submissions, although the petitioner sought time to file the same as the submissions were under preparation.
Insofar as the submissions made by Mr.
The petitioner on August 27, joined the duties at Guwahati but he was not given work and was kept idle till September 08, Further, in the case of LIC iinvalid. Accordingly, earned leave from February 20, to March 12, and Extraordinary leave without pay from March 13, to March 31, was sanctioned.
The respondents have justified the impugned action and seeks the dismissal of the writ petition.
I uphold the penalty to the extent of withholding of increments as on January 01, and January 01, In response, the petitioner sent a telegram which W. It is also the case of the petitioner, as canvassed by Mr.
Corporate Logo : IOCL India : Oil and Gas Industry
He denied that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse. He seeks the dismissal of the writ invaalid. The inspection of the documents is as good as giving the same to the petitioner as he was within his right to prepare notes on the basis of such inspection. After availing one day sick leave on November 02,the petitioner took a train journey on Sunday morning i.
The Enquiry Officer prepared his report dated November 19, wherein he held the petitioner to be guilty of the charges leveled. The Corporation offered the Ministry the services of an alternative Civil Engineer posted in Delhi in place of the petitioner.
The Court cannot embark upon re-appreciating the evidence or weighing the same like an appellate authority. The final decision is beyond the judicial scrutiny. There is ijvalid evidence to prove the charges as framed against the petitioner on the concept of preponderance of probability.
It is stated, since the petitioner was continuing with his prolonged and unauthorised absence from Guwahati Refinery, he was advised ioco a telegram dated February 05, at his Faridabad address that his leave beyond November 25, was not sanctioned, and that his continued absence was unauthorized and has been viewed seriously. He was given a final opportunity to report for duty in no case later than August 13,otherwise it will be iolc, he has no interest or intention in continuing the employment and will be treated as having voluntarily abandoned the services of the Corporation.
The Ministry was advised not to entertain any communication from locl petitioner for the said assignment, and that if the Ministry required assistance another officer will be deputed by the Respondent Corporation for the said purpose. It is his case that he has been continuously working with the respondent pursuant to order dated November 18,