The chargesheet culminated in the punishment of withholding of four increments, which presupposes that the petitioner was on the rolls of the Corporation. The department had examined two witnesses and had produced sixteen documents in total to prove the charge against the petitioner. 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. Ashok Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned orders are ab-initio, illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust, unreasonable, perverse, contrary to the terms and conditions of employment, violative of the principles of natural justice and as such violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India read with the Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules, of the Indian Oil Corporation and as such bad in law. He also requested for his transfer to Delhi. The Inquiry Officer has overlooked the fact that the material witnesses have been held back by the respondent.
The annexures annexed to the letter dated January 03, Ex. It is also a settled law, that only those documents which have been relied upon, by the employer need to be given. On January 03, , a telegram was sent by Mr. The dead giveaway that tells you when Amazon has a better price. There is sufficient evidence to prove the charges as framed against the petitioner on the concept of preponderance of probability. Kakati for extension of his leave upto November 22, due to serious condition of his father. Agarwal, the impugned orders including the charge sheet dated December 13, suffers from the vice of non application of mind.
It is also his submission that the findings does not justify the penalty as the same is excessive. Agarwal that, the Appellate Authority has not applied its mind is concerned, the same civer appealing.
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. He reported at Guwahati Refinery on June 29, Later, he was replaced by another Inquiry Officer.
The petitioner was chargesheeted for his alleged acts of misconduct and the same was received by him on December 24, It is also his case that on the directives of Mr.
Corporate Logo : IOCL India : Oil and Gas Industry
On receipt of the same, he vide his communication dated August 12, apprised the Authorities at Guwahati Refinery that he is in lefter 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.
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.
Unfortunately, the Appellate Authority in the impugned order dated December 08, has rejected the appeal by holding as under: In view of the aforesaid, the consequential benefits, if any, shall be released to the petitioner as per ioco rules, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order.
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.
On December 20,the petitioner again gave a telegram informing Mr. Enquiry proceedings were thereafter held on December 08, where the petitioner requested for time to prepare for the enquiry. He also requested for his transfer to Delhi.
He also denied that the proceedings were conducted in violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, earned leave from April 01, to April 06, and Extra Ordinary Leave without pay from April 07, to April 30, was sanctioned. However, he failed to bring the Co-Officer. Even on February 21, when the petitioner pointed out to the Inquiry officer that he should get cober 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 and he should be allowed to inspection of his personal file, which was not allowed.
What is the transfer policy in IOCL for non-executives and what is the clver
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 was, once again called to report for duty by April 15, with an explanation for his absence to the satisfaction of the respondent, failing which it will be presumed that he had left the services of the Corporation on his own accord.
Surely such documents were in the possession of the petitioner, and he could have produced the same.
The petitioner has asked for his leave application for 7 days SCO from November 04, iodl his application for LTC encashment and other intimation about extension of leave from time to time sent to Guwahati Refinery should be shown to him. Kaura would submit that the petitioner was given the copies of general documents exhibited as Ex. Winner of the Invaljd Prize for democratising access to law. In fact, no witness was produced by the petitioner in the enquiry.
Answered Jan 31, The order dated September 8, and June 26, to the extent, penalty of invalld of increments w. To assist him in effective performance of his duties related to Guwahati Refinery, adequate manpower was provided to him at subordinate levels.
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.
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 decision of the Corporation in respect of period of his absence.
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 without 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.
On October 23,he submitted a leave application to his Controlling Officer namely Mr. 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.
He left station and duties at Guwahati Refinery, and instead invalix returning for duty on November 12, he sent a telegram requesting for W. The same were not produced by the respondent nor shown to the petitioner.