MANJIT AHLUWALIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated24 April 1989(communicatedtothe petitioner by letter dated 17 May 1989)of the Oil India Limited, the second respondent, dismissing the petitioner from service. The petitioner also seeks to quash the order dated 25 January 1990 dismissing his appeal by the appellate authority. Then the petitioner seeks consequential reliefs.

(2.) There are four respondents. The first respondent, as the title shows, is the Union of India in the Ministry of Petroleum; the second respondent is the Oil India Limited, a Government Company under Section 617 of the Companiess Act, through its Chairman; the third and fourth respondents, respectively, are the Executive Director and Chairman & Managing Director (for short 'C.M.D. ' ) of the Oil India Limited.

(3.) The petitioner was working as Assistant Financial Controller, a Grade VI post, in Rajasthan Project of the second respondent. By memordandum dated 13 October 1987 he was informed by the General Manager, Rajasthan Project, Oil India Limited, Jodhpur, that the General Manager proposed to hold an enquiry against him under the Oil India Limited Executives' Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1982 (for short "the Rules"). The substance of the imputation of misconduct in respect of which the inquiry was to be held was separately given in the statement of articles of charges. The petitioner was also given statement of imputations of misconduct in respect of each article of charge and so also the documents by which the articles of charges were proposed to be sustained. The petitioner was given time to submit answer to the show cause notice giving his statement of defence and also to state whether he desired to be heard in person. There were four articles of charges framed against the petitioner. These were: (1) He remained absent from duty during varying periods in 1986 and 1987on his proposed ill health by furnishing false reasons and there being no previous approval of the General Manager; (II) When explanation was called for from the petitioner by the General Manager, the petitoner forged or got an endorsement forged on a certain receipt issued by the Jodhpur Hospital & Research Centre as having been referred to a specialist in Delhi for further treatment of a certain disease; (III) The petitioner submitted a demand letter dated 30 September 1985 from the IDPL Employees Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited, New Delhi, and drew a sumofRs.21,000.00 fromthe second respondent bymanipulating or causing to be manipulated figures in the demand letter of the society whereas the correct figure was onlyRs.ll,000.00 ; and (IV) lastly, the petitioner withdrew a sum ofRs.52,050.00 from the Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited, New Delhi, as house building loan by submitting there an application dated I September 1983 whereas in his application dated 23 August 1984 to the second respondent he had stated that he would not be drawing the loan from the Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited, though he had in fact drawn the advance from both the sources, i.e., H.D.F.C. as well as the second respondent in order that he could accumulate more monies than that he could duly obtain otherwise. Respecting the articles of charge II and III it was stated that by submitting such forged or manipulated documents to the second respondent the petitioner committed misconduct in termsofRules5.4,5.17 and5.21 of theRules.and respecting article of charge IV it was stated that by misrepresenting to the second respondent the petitioner committed misconduct in terms of Rule 5.4 of the Rules.