The documents were very important for his defence and have a direct bearing on the case and the same were not allowed except, if they are available, the same be produced before the next sitting. 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. Vijay was appointed as an Inquiry Officer. He also requested the respondent for furnishing copy of the documents since the respondent neither supplied the demanded documents nor given any reply. In response, vide office order dated November 18, , the petitioner was directed to report to GM, Guwahati Refinery on or before December 04,
That apart, this Court is of the view, that there is no order, issued by the corporation authorizing him to work in the Ministry, as was done in the past. Even otherwise, it is his case that the petitioner having joined back the services, the order dated September 08, need to be reviewed. It is noted, the petitioner had asked for documents which he had written. 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. On August 22, , the petitioner received another letter from the Guwahati Refinery whereby he was asked to rejoin his duties latest by August 24, It is not a case of no evidence at all. 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.
By a fax message dated February 16,he requested W. On October 23,he submitted a leave application to his Controlling Officer namely Mr.
I uphold the penalty to the extent of withholding of increments as on January 01, and January 01, 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.
Agarwal, the impugned orders including the charge sheet dated December 13, suffers from invaalid vice of non application of mind. The Ministry through its letter dated September 22, sought to know whether the petitioner had been formally allowed to assist the Ministry into the investigation and if so a copy of IOC’s letter deputing him for investigation be furnished to them.
He also enclosed a medical certificate in that regard. According to the petitioner, he received a letter dated August 04, W.
The documents were very important for his defence and have a direct bearing on the case and the same were not allowed except, if they are available, the same be produced before the next sitting.
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.
In response, the Corporation through its letter dated July 10, informed the Ministry that the Petitioner has been absenting from duty in spite of various communications addressed to him. There is an error invalid cover letter in the IOCL internship portal on the internet. 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.
It is averred that on January 13,a telegram was sent by the petitioner to Mr.
Further, it is not a case, where the leaves applied for by the petitioner have been sanctioned. He stated that, the enquiry officer, has held the charges against the petitioner have been proved in view of sufficient evidence on record. Enquiry invvalid were thereafter held on December 08, where the petitioner requested for time to prepare for iock enquiry.
He on September 12,submitted the detailed representation to the GM of the respondent Corporation against coevr termination. He denied that the Enquiry Officer was biased. It is also his case that on the directives of Mr. He reported at Guwahati Refinery on June 29, He was also advised to lette duty at Guwahati Refinery at the earliest and cooperate with the enquiry proceedings.
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. 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.
Corporate Logo : IOCL India : Oil and Gas Industry
Vide order dated September 08,the respondents have, on the failure of the petitioner to report for duty by a stipulated date August 24, invoked Rule 8 of the CDA Rules of the Corporation and struck off the name of the petitioner from the Rolls of the Corporation with effect from August 25, On January 03,a telegram was sent by Mr.
It is not a case of no evidence at all.
The petitioner was chargesheeted for his alleged acts of misconduct and the same was received by him on December imvalid, So it necessarily follows, the petitioner should have joined back the Guwahati Refinery, which he had not, as without any order he could not have worked for the Ministry.
How is internship review for IOCL?
He also denied that the proceedings were conducted in violation of principles of natural justice. But the Inquiry Officer has not done it, thus mandatory Rules iol, 14 and 15 under Clause 31 of the CDA Rules, have been violated, which vitiated the proceedings of inquiry. It is the petitioner’s case that he met with Mr.
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 his case, that between July to Octoberthe 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.
The petitioner produced six documents, which included various annexures annexed with Ex.