MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Vs. GENERAL MANAGER OPERATIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India had challenged the action of the respondent authorities of non-continuation of promotion given to the petitioner as Assistant Engineer (P) with effect from 1-1-1991 on the ground that the said action was perverse, arbitrary and suffered from the vice of non-application of mind. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing and setting aside the office order dated 3.7.1986 under which the petitioner's pay was fixed at Rs. 850/= with effect from 1-1-1986 as a Chargeman. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing and setting aside the memorandum dated 25-9-1992 and office order dated 9.11.1992. The petitioner has sought for declaration from this Court that the petitioner was entitled to get promotion to the post of Chargeman (P) with effect from 1.1.1983 instead of 1.1.1986 and for a declaration to the effect that petitioner was entitled to get promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (P) with effect from 1.1.1986 instead of 1.1.1991 or 1.1.1992. The petitioner has further sought directions from this Court to the respondent authorities to prepare the seniority list of Chargeman as if the petitioner was promoted to the post of Chargeman (P) with effect from 1.1.1983 and further to prepare seniority list of the Assistant Engineer (P) as if the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (P) with effect from 1.1.1986 instead of 1.1.1991 or 1.1.1992.

(2.) The petitioner has also prayed for interim relief against the respondent authorities restraining them from implementing the impugned memorandum dated 25.9.1992 and the impugned office order dated 9.11.1992. However, this Court has initially granted ad-interim relief against effecting any recovery from the salary payable to the petitioner on the basis of the order passed by the respondent authorities on 9.11.1992. The said ad-interim relief was made interim relief thereafter and it was continued all throughout during the pendency of this petition.

(3.) The brief facts, as are emerged from the petition, are that the petitioner had joined ONGC on 25.1.1969 as T.G.IV (Badli) and he was designated as a Production Operator in the grade of Rs. 440-758. On 24.11.1982 the petitioner was served with memorandum making certain allegations against him and the said allegations were refuted by him vide his reply dated 8/10.1.1983. The preliminary enquiry was held against the petitioner and vide memorandum dated 17/18.1.1983 penalty of stoppage of next two increments without cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner. Being aggrieved by this memorandum, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 22.2.1983 before the Deputy General Manager, ONGC, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad, and the said appeal came to be rejected on 19.4.1983. The petitioner thereafter preferred second appeal, inter alia, contending that he was not at all responsible for the alleged incident and he therefore requested for a lenient view to be taken in the matter. The petitioner has also contended that the harsh punishment was imposed on him without any basis whatsoever. The petitioner was however informed on 20th August 1983 that there was no provision of second appeal in ONGC (CD and A) Regulations, 1976. The petitioner, therefore, preferred an appeal before the Director (Personnel), ONGC, Tel Bhavan, Dehradun which was also rejected on 24.3.1984 by holding that there were no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority.