He simultaneously apprised the concerned Authorities in the respondent Corporation about the completion of his assignment with the Ministry by endorsing a copy of the covering letter to Mr. The feedback you provide will help us show you more relevant content in the future. The annexures annexed to the letter dated January 03, Ex. The Ministry was advised not to entertain any communication from the 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. What did you mention in your cover letter to get an internship in IIM-A? 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. What are some of the best sites to apply for internships in India?
The petitioner on August 27, joined the duties at Guwahati but he was not given work and was kept idle till September 08, The Inquiry Officer also asked the Presenting Officer to do the same. If that be so, the Enquiry Officer was required to question the W. It is his case, that between July to October , the petitioner was given the Vigilance Investigation Assignment in Madras Refinery Limited for which he submitted his final report on October 01, to the Joint Secretary Marketing in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. Thereafter, yet another opportunity was given to him to report for duty by August 24, , which was not complied with. It was also clearly indicated to the Ministry that the Corporation is proceeding with action for termination of his services from the Corporation.
The petitioner on receipt of the same, filed his written explanation dated December 27, thereby W.
Corporate Logo : IOCL India : Oil and Gas Industry
This tool looks for lower prices at other stores while you shop on Amazon and tells you where to buy. It is averred that on April 14,he was in receipt of a telegram from Guwahati Refinery wherein it was stated that he was advised vide telegram dated February 05, that his leave from November 25, has not been sanctioned.
Rules 31 14 and 31 15 read as under: The petitioner produced six documents, which included various annexures annexed with Ex. I may note, the plea of the petitioner that Mr. Kakati at Guwahati Refinery in continuation of his earlier message of December 20, for extension of his sick leave till his next medical check-up during last week of February, 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.
Agarwal, the impugned orders including the charge sheet dated December 13, suffers from the vice of non application of mind. However, he failed to bring the Co-Officer. 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 petitioner preferred an appeal dated September 05, addressed to the Chairman against the order date June 26, passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Further, in the case of LIC vs.
He also denied that the proceedings were conducted in violation of principles of natural justice. Suffice to state, he had sent a letter dated April 18, wherein he has explained that since March 16,he has been working for the Joint Secretary Min Charge of Vigilance for Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas at New Delhi in connection with a vigilance case investigation and in respect thereof, he had already submitted his preliminary report on March 31, In the present case, the Inquiry officer had not asked the petitioner to present his defence and produce his evidence and the petitioner was not aware of the procedure or implication of not producing himself as a witness and thus great prejudice has been caused to the petitioner resulting in violation of the Rules and principles of natural justice.
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.
On January 03,a telegram was sent by Mr. How can anyone get an internship in IOCL?
Yogendra Singh vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. on 20 December,
Kakati for sanction of seven days W. 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. He denied that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse.
It is not a case of no evidence at iovl. 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.
Agarwal that, the Appellate Authority has not applied its mind is concerned, the same is appealing. That apart, the proceedings are in violation of Rule 31 3 of the CDA Rules, of the Indian Oil Corporation, inasmuch the Inquiry Officer was required to ask the petitioner to present his defence and produce his evidence.
The said action of the Inquiry officer was arbitrary. The department had examined two witnesses and had produced sixteen documents in total to prove the charge against the petitioner.
Joseph, GM HR of the respondent. 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, The Presenting Officer mentioned that the specific application for 7 days SCO was not available in the personal file.
Even on the 5 th sitting held on March 26,the Presenting Officer submitted three additional documents, requested to bring one more witness namely Mukut Dutta as additional witness and eleven documents for inspection. It was further made clear to the Ministry that the Petitioner has not been assigned any task in connection with the vigilance case of the Ministry, and that he cannot be assigned any task either in the Corporation or outside the Corporation.
Degala Suryanarayana AIR SC has inter-alia held, the court while exercising jurisdiction of judicial review would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings excepting W. 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 and he should be allowed to inspection of his personal file, which was not allowed.
The petitioner in his W.