LOLIT RAJKONWAR Vs. OIL INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the Annexure-G and I orders dated 8.5.2003 and 11.5.2004. By the first order, the petitioner was dismissed from service pursuant to a departmental proceeding. By the second order, the departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of dismissal was dismissed. Challenging the entire departmental proceeding including the enquiry report thereof and the said two orders, it is the case of the petitioner that the departmental proceeding was in violation of the principles of natural justice.

(2.) THE petitioner while was serving as Sr. Land Officer was served with the memorandum of charge Sheet dated 15.1.2001 proposing to hold an enquiry under Rule 25 of the OIL Executives Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1982. Along with the memorandum of charge sheet, the statement of Articles of charge and the statement of Imputation of misconduct in support of the articles of charge had also been furnished. The lists of documents and witnesses had also been furnished.

(3.) ON receipt of the charge sheet when the petitioner prayed for inspection of the related documents, he was informed by Annexure-B communication dated 8.3.2001 that he would be allowed inspection of documents and would be provided with full opportunity to defend himself in case of any decision to hold the enquiry. The petitioner by his Annexure-D letter dated 15.5.2001 forwarded his written statement of defence. By the said statement, he denied the charges levelled against him. His defence was that he had signed the related documents as were brought to him by his subordinates and that he had not visited the site. In due course, the disciplinary authority conducted an enquiry by appointing an Inquiry Officer. On conclusion of the enquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 1.3.2002 holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order dated 8.5.2003 dismissing the petitioner from service. Before the impugned order was passed, written briefs had been submitted by both the parties i.e. the petitioner and the Presenting Officer on behalf of the disciplinary authority.