As there is evidence on record to prove the charges, this Court would not re-appreciate the same and come to a different conclusion. On receipt of the said letter, the Corporation forthwith informed the Ministry through its letter NO. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the issue which arises for consideration is whether the impugned orders passed by the respondents, which included the order of imposing penalty of withholding of four annual increments due on January 01, , January 01, , January 01, and January 01, with cumulative effect and the dismissal of appeal thereof are just and proper and the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for. In response, the petitioner sent a telegram which W. That apart, he had taken voluntary retirement in the year
However, the petitioner neither responded to the said letter, nor reported for duty, but continued his unauthorized absence. On October 23, , he submitted a leave application to his Controlling Officer namely Mr. 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. Interestingly, the Presenting Officer in the sitting on June 12, , submitted two copies of written briefs to the Inquiry Officer. 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.
The respondent has filed their counter affidavit wherein, apart from making some preliminary submissions, it is their case that the petitioner while working as Covver 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. 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.
I may state here that lettee Inquiry Officer in his report has stated; 1 there is no proof of the petitioner meeting Mr.
The said action of the Inquiry officer was arbitrary. The Inquiry Officer also referred to 73 other documents produced by the petitioner herein.
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 Disciplinary Authority also ordered that the period from August 25, till December 03, shall not be treated as on duty for all purposes. Accordingly, earned leave from February 20, to March 12, and Extraordinary leave without pay from March 13, to March 31, was sanctioned.
He also requested for his transfer to Delhi.
What is the transfer policy in IOCL for non-executives and what is the process? 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.
Rather, in the telegram dated April 14,he was informed that the leaves have not been sanctioned and was asked to join back. Kaura would submit that the petitioner was given the copies invakid general documents exhibited as Ex.
He was advised to report for duty latest covsr February 11, failing which it would be presumed that he was no longer interested in his employment and action would be taken as per Rules of the Corporation.
It is his case, on November 30,he applied to Mr. 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.
Agarwal, the impugned orders including the charge sheet dated December 13, suffers from the vice of non application of mind. Agreeing with the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the Chairman disposed of the iock. The Court cannot embark upon re-appreciating the evidence or weighing the same like an appellate authority.
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 invxlid any ground or any extenuating circumstance which may warrant review of order dated June 26, passed by the Disciplinary Authority.
It is the case of the petitioner, in lnvalid proceedings held on March 28,the petitioner cross examined MW 2 Mr. The petitioner invalod an appeal dated September 05, addressed to the Chairman against the order date June 26, passed by the Disciplinary Authority.
Yogendra Singh vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. on 20 December,
The petitioner in his W. Related Questions How do I write a cover letter when applying for an internship? The Presenting Officer mentioned that the specific application for 7 days SCO was not available in the personal file.
The petitioner has asked for his leave application for 7 days SCO from November 04, and his application for LTC encashment and other intimation about extension of leave from time to time sent to Guwahati Refinery iocp be shown to him. The Inquiry Officer has overlooked the fact that the material witnesses have been held back by the respondent.
He stated that, the enquiry officer, has held the charges against the petitioner have been proved in view of sufficient evidence on record. It is not only once, on kocl occasions he was asked to join back. He also enclosed a medical certificate in that regard. He remained unauthorizedly absent on the pretext of working with the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Ivalid, which was without any authority or permission of the Management.
He denied that the Enquiry Officer was biased.
Corporate Logo : IOCL India : Oil and Gas Industry
In response, the petitioner sent a telegram which W. What goes on a resume’s cover letter? 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. Thereafter, the petitioner sought extension of leave upto April 30, on the ground of his wife’s mental and physical condition.