ANIL PADEGAONKAR Vs. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was working as Aviation Officer in Management Cadre in Job Group 'a' and was posted at Gwalior Aviation Service Station, in the year 1990 when due to certain misconduct alleged to have been committed by him, a charge-sheet dated 31-12-1993 (Annexure P-12) was issued to him. The charges levelled against the petitioner related to his acting in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Corporation and neglect of work. The petitioner was asked to submit his reply to the aforesaid charge-sheet within ten days, vide Annexure P-13, dated 6-1-94, the Dy. General Manager, Aviation appointed Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry into the allegations levelled in the charge-sheet.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that he had asked for certain documents in order to enable him to submit the written statement but without giving him due opportunity, the enquiry was proceeded with. In the meanwhile, while the enquiry into the aforesaid charge-sheet was pending and after the said enquiry was conducted on 25-8-94, just thereafter on 14-9-94 he was placed under suspension vide Annexure P-19 and on 27-9-94 another charge-sheet was issued to him vide Annexure P-20 and the allegations in the aforesaid charge-sheet related to absence from the appointed place of work or leaving station without permission from the competent authority or sufficient cause. This charge-sheet (Annexure P-20) is issued by the General Manager (Sales ). Thereafter, enquiry was conducted into this charge-sheet also and finally on the basis of a finding of guilt submitted by the Enquiry Officer vide his report dated 6-1-1995 forwarded to the petitioner vide letter dated 17-1-95 (Annexure P-23), the services of the petitioner were dispensed with by way of punishment vide order dated 21-5-97 (Annexure P-2 ). The order of punishment is passed by the Director (Marketing ). The petitioner filed an appeal against the aforesaid order (Annexure P-2) and vide Annexure P-25 the appeal is also rejected.

(3.) IN the petition and during the course of hearing various grounds have been raised impugning the order passed against the petitioner. Grounds related to non supply of documents, not giving proper opportunity to defend in the enquiry, opportunity being not given for producing defence witnesses, perversity in the findings of the Enquiry Officer and enquiry being conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice. That apart, it is also contended that the allegations in the charge-sheet are unsustainable and the petitioner is not guilty of the charges levelled "against him.