While working so, on December 13, the petitioner received a charge sheet whereby certain charges of misconduct were leveled against him. He would state, that the Inquiry Officer has not even discussed the defence set by the petitioner. He seeks the dismissal of the writ petition. Joseph, GM HR of the respondent. 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.
What is the transfer policy in IOCL for non-executives and what is the process? Pursuant thereto, one K. Kakati for extension of his leave upto November 22, due to serious condition of his father. It is stated, since the petitioner was continuing with his prolonged and unauthorised absence from Guwahati Refinery, he was advised by 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. In response to the aforesaid letter dated March 03, , the Corporation informed the Ministry through its letter dated March 13, that the petitioner has been absenting from duty for the last months and has not reported back at Guwahati Refinery. 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. 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.
Kakati for extension of his leave upto November 22, due to serious condition of his father. In view of the aforesaid, the consequential benefits, if any, shall be released to the petitioner invalis per the rules, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order. In substance, it is his submission that the Inquiry Officer during the course of the inquiry has acted as a Presenting Officer rather than an Inquiry Officer.
Kakati for grant ijvalid sick leave with effect from November 25, due to his sickness AS rest was advised by his Doctor.
In the proceedings held on March 29,the Inquiry Officer arbitrarily agreed with the stand leetter the Presenting Officer that personal file of the petitioner was confidential and lettdr not be shown to the petitioner, though Inquiry Officer directed the Presenting Officer to make available the dispatch record of telegram dated April 09, for inspection to the petitioner but the same was not available. It is also his submission that the findings does not justify the penalty as the same is excessive.
On November 11,the first sitting of the enquiry was held at which the petitioner was not present, and the proceedings were accordingly adjourned.
The petitioner preferred an appeal dated September 05, addressed to the Ioco against the order date June 26, passed by the Disciplinary Authority. How is internship review for IOCL?
Yogendra Singh vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. on 20 December,
This tool looks for lower prices at invslid stores while you shop on Amazon and tells you where to buy. What are some of the best sites to apply for internships in India? It is his case lette he apprised all W.
The Presenting Officer examined MW 1 and the inquiry was adjourned for the next date i. Agarwal that, the Appellate Authority has not applied its mind is concerned, the same is appealing. It is stated, since the petitioner was given various opportunities to join his duties at W.
You can only use alphabets, numbers, fullstop. Rather, in the telegram dated April 14,he was informed that the leaves have not been sanctioned and was asked to join back. The respondents have justified the impugned action and seeks the dismissal of the writ petition. 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.
He was also lettfr that even the medical certificate dated March 14, furnished by him certified him to be fit for resuming duties from March 16,and that inspite of this he had not resumed duties. On September 08, the petitioner was served with an impugned order whereby his services were terminated by way of striking off his name from the rolls of the invallid Corporation with effect from August 25, The penalty to that extent being separable with the penalty of stoppage of increments 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,invald have not been given and he should be allowed to inspection of his personal file, which was not allowed. On August 22,the ipcl received another letter from the Guwahati Refinery whereby he was asked to rejoin his duties latest by August 24, It is also a settled law, that only those documents which have been relied upon, by the employer need to be given.
Insofar as plea of perversity is concerned, suffice to state, the primary plea of the petitioner against the charges framed against him being; 1 that he inva,id working for the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas; 2 he has been informing the progress of the investigation to Mr.
Thereafter, yet another opportunity was given to him to report for duty by August 24,which was not complied with.
There is nothing in the order to kocl that the Appellate Authority had applied its mind to the grounds raised by the petitioner in his appeal. 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, There is sufficient evidence to prove the charges as framed against the petitioner on the concept of preponderance of probability.
D-2 have been referred to by the Inquiry Officer to be the following: Interestingly, the Presenting Officer in the sitting on June 12,submitted two copies of written briefs to the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner produced six documents, which included various annexures annexed with Ex. Agarwal that the order dated September 08, would not survive as the petitioner having been reinstated and on his reinstatement, he has been proceeded departmentally is concerned, the same is covee.
Pursuant thereto, one K.