DEEPAK KUMAR KHINVASARA Vs. OIL INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard appellant appearing in -person and learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) THIS Special Appeal arises out of the order dated 4th February, 2014 passed by learned Single Judge, by which he has dismissed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2705/2002 Deepak Kumar Khinvasara V/s Oil (India) Limited and ors. filed with the prayers to direct the respondents -Company to maintain correct continuity and seniority of the petitioner from time to time when the persons admittedly junior to him were promoted. The petitioner has also prayed for directions to grant him the benefit of long service award, computation of leave and crediting in account etc., as prayed in the writ petition, and not to implement the disciplinary advice No. RP/DRLG/PLG -33/923 dated 13.8.1998 in totality by maintaining seniority and continuity of the petitioner in the service of the respondents -Department.

(3.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the writ petition are that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner when he was serving in the clerical grade in the respondents -Company. The disciplinary proceedings culminated into an order of dismissal dated 23.1.1990. The petitioner challenged the order of dismissal as well as the order by which his departmental appeal was dismissed on 19.4.1990 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3310/1990. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the dismissal order dated 23.1.1990 and appellate order dated 19.4.1990, with directions to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with back wages and all consequential benefits. The writ petition was allowed with the findings that the dismissal order was passed by the Superintending Engineer (Drilling), who is an authority subordinate to the Appointing Authority i.e. the General Manager. In the absence of powers delegated to the Superintending Engineer (Drilling), the orders of dismissal passed by him were illegal and without jurisdiction. Learned Single Judge further held that the principles of service jurisprudence to the effect that the Disciplinary Authority itself could not become Appellate Authority was also violated with impunity.