ALOK MUKHERJI Vs. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, REGISTERED AND CORPORATE OFFICE, MUMBAI,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Though the matter was listed for considering the petition to vacate the stay, as counter has been filed, on consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal.

(2.) The petitioner was an employee under the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, hereinafter called the Corporation. It appears that he had purchased a piece of immovable property without giving prior intimation to the Corporation. Proceeding was initiated against the petitioner alleging that he had purchased the property without giving any prior intimation. When the petitioner gave a reply stating that due to oversight he had not given prior intimation and had not indicated the property in his annual statement, ultimately, just a few days prior to the retirement of the petitioner, the following punishment was imposed on him.

(3.) It has been contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the penalty imposed is not contemplated in any of the minor penalties envisaged under the relevant rules relating to disciplinary proceedings. It is not disputed that the Corporation purported to impose a minor penalty on the petitioner, as has been specifically stated in the impugned order, passed by the original authority. Part -II (B) (1) envisages the various minor penalties which are extracted hereunder.