Answered Jan 31, Interestingly, the Presenting Officer in the sitting on June 12, , submitted two copies of written briefs to the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer gave only one of the copies to the petitioner on the alleged ground that the petitioner’s copy will be given to him when he would submit his written brief. 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. The Inquiry Officer also asked the Presenting Officer to do the same. The Inquiry Officer also referred to 73 other documents produced by the petitioner herein.
There is an error invalid cover letter in the IOCL internship portal on the internet. 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. Suffice to state, he was taken back on the rolls of the Corporation. How can anyone get an internship in IOCL? In response, the petitioner sent a telegram which W. Insofar as the submissions made by Mr.
It is his submission that the report of the Inquiry Officer is perverse, inasmuch as the findings of the Inquiry officer based on no evidence. It is their case, since the question of the petitioner’s continued employment was involved, the petitioner was, vide telegram dated April 09, given another opportunity to report for duties latest by April 15, with an explanation for his absence to the satisfaction of the Management, failing which it shall be presumed that he has left the service of the Corporation on his own accord and the case shall be treated as a case lettrr relinquishment from the service without notice from his side and action would be taken as per Rules of the Corporation.
I uphold the penalty to the extent ilcl withholding of increments as on January 01, and January 01, Inspecting documents meets the requirement of principles of natural justice. What goes on a resume’s cover letter? The petitioner then preferred an appeal dated November 05, addressed to the Chairman against the order dated September 08, wherein his name was struck off from the rolls of the Corporation w.
Yogendra Singh vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. on 20 December,
The Enquiry Officer prepared his report dated November 19, wherein he held the petitioner to be guilty of the charges leveled.
There is nothing in cver order to show that the Appellate Authority had applied its mind to the grounds raised by the petitioner in his appeal. Further, it is not a case, where the leaves applied for by the petitioner have been sanctioned.
Agarwal that, the Appellate Authority has not applied its mind is concerned, the same is appealing. The stand of the Inquiry Officer that the personal file of the petitioner is a confidential file coveg not be shown to the petitioner shows the malice on the part of the Inquiry Officer.
Joseph at New Delhi. Agreeing with the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the Chairman disposed of the appeal. After availing one day sick leave on November 02,the petitioner took a train journey on Sunday morning i.
In response thereto, it is averred that the petitioner has on April 15, sent an express telegram to the respondent, wherein he has stated that he has already given reasons for his overstaying in the leave being medical and had requested the respondent not to take any action till the receipt of detailed reasons.
Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
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 also the case of the petitioner, as canvassed by Mr. The department had examined two witnesses and had produced sixteen documents in total to prove the charge against the petitioner.
Corporate Logo : IOCL India : Oil and Gas Industry
On Ioc 20,the petitioner again gave a telegram informing Mr. 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.
The petitioner on receipt of the same, filed his written explanation dated December 27, thereby W. Accordingly, earned leave from February 20, to March 12, and Extraordinary leave without pay from March 13, to March 31, was sanctioned. It is his case that he has been continuously working with the respondent pursuant to order dated November 18, He, however, did not mention the expected date of his reporting back for duty nor he sent any proof or particulars of his sickness, and again continued to be absent without enquiring whether his leave had been sanctioned or not.
According to him, it is a clear case where the petitioner did not obey the lawful orders issued calling upon him to join back. 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.
It is stated, since the petitioner was given various opportunities to join his duties at W.
It is stated, in response, the petitioner submitted a representation dated September 12, to the GM Guwahati Refinery appealing to him to withdraw the letter dated September 08, 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, How is internship review for IOCL?
Having said that, the question which arises is what relief the petitioner is entitled to; whether the matter should be remanded back to the Appellate Authority to pass fresh order.
It is not a case of no evidence at all. Unfortunately, the Appellate Authority in the impugned order dated December 08, has rejected the appeal by holding as under: When will IOCL send a call letter for a summer internship?
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.