ABHIJEET VELAPURE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, the petitioner has sought diverse reliefs including challenge to order terminating his service from the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ('BPCL'). The other reliefs pertain to alleged corruption in the functioning of the BPCL and a direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) i.e. respondent No.7 to investigate the allegations levelled by the petitioner. The petitioner claims that he is apprehending danger to his safety and therefore, this Court may direct the respondent No.6-Director General of Police, Maharashtra, to provide adequate Police protection to him. Apart from this, the petitioner has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- from concerned employees of BPCL, who had allegedly lobbied against him while he was working in the said organization.

(2.) Upon issuance of notice, the BPCL entered appearance through counsel, the respondent No. 1-Union of India, the respondent No.7-CBI and the respondent No.8-State of Maharashtra also entered appearance through counsel. Since the respondent Nos.2 and 3, being senior officers of the BPCL, are the main contesting respondents in this writ petition, arguments opposing the present writ petition were principally advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the said respondent Nos.2 and 3.

(3.) In the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that he joined as a Graduate Engineering Trainee on 26/06/2013 with the BPCL and that after completion of probation, his appointment with the BPCL was confirmed on 01/07/2014. Thereafter, the petitioner has given details of his postings with the BPCL. According to the petitioner, when he was transferred to the Retail Division of the BPCL and posted as Maintenance Officer in depots of the BPCL at Miraj and Sangli in Maharashtra, he came across details as to the manner in which there was widespread corruption in the function?ing of the BPCL. On this basis, the petitioner has made statements regarding the alleged corruption in distribution of petroleum products at the BPCL. The petitioner has then stated how he was harassed by senior officers of the BPCL by depriving him of leave that was rightfully due to him and for other such reasons. The pe?titioner has then stated how a departmental enquiry was initiated against him on three charges pertaining to alleged fraudulent medical bills raised by him, while claiming reimbursement for medical treatment of his father. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the enquiry initiated against him resulted in a report holding him guilty of all the three charges, leading to issuance of order dated 30/10/2020, terminating his service.