(1.) Petitioner was a permanent staff member of the Indian Oil orporation. He along with others, is said to have been involved in theft of oil from Haldia Dock Complex. An FIR was lodged against all the persons who committed the theft including the petitioner. On that basis, Criminal Case No. 1 was registered and he was arrested on September 6, 1988 and was subsequently released on November 3, 1988. Relying upon Station Order No. 20-IV of the Corporation, he was dismissed from service, which reads thus :
(2.) When the services of the petitioner were terminated he challenged the validity of the Rule in question by filing a writ petition in the Calcutta High Court. The High Court in W.P.C.O. No.1590 (W) of 1989 and on appeal from Original Order Tender No. 3066/92 by order dated 28th June,1995 upheld the validity of the above rule and dismissed the petition. Thus this special leave petition.
(3.) Whri M. N. Krishnamani, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Rule is ex facie arbitrary offending Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This Court in Workmen of Hindustan Steels Ltd v. Hindustan Steels Ltd., (1985)2 SCR 428 : (AIR 1985 SC 251), considered a similar provision made by the Hindustan Steels Ltd. in its Standing Order. This Court struck down the provision as violative of Article 14 and held that the action violated the principle of natural justice offending Article 14 of the Constitution. Same ratio is applicable to the facts in this case. Therefore, it is contended that the view taken by the High Court is not correct in law. We find no force in the contention.