It was also specifically stated in the companynter affidavit about the punishment awarded to the respondent for theft and fraud etc.
The appeal of Shri Santosh Kumar is hereby forwarded to Director M the Appellate Authority for his kind companysideration and orders.
IR/1461/ N 113 dated 30.12.1999 as a measure of disciplinary action against Shri Santosh Kumar.
The Disciplinary Authority placed all the papers relating to the case before the Director Marketing , Appellate Authority for his perusal and orders.
The Disciplinary Authority agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer after taking into all aspects of the case into companysideration.
Aggrieved by the above judgment, the Corporation has companye up in appeal before us.
The other charges have number been proved.
The Enquiry Officer submitted his report which is available at page 26 to 40 of the paper book.
The learned Judges of the Division Bench felt that the orders of punishment dated 30.12.1999 as well as the order dated 15.5.2000 by which the respondents appeal had been rejected are cryptic and number speaking orders and, therefore, the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority are liable to be set aside on the ground of number application of mind.
Eight charges were framed against the respondent.
The Enquiry Officer found the respondent guilty of charge Nos.
Several other grounds had also been taken on merits of the claim by the writ petitioner respondent herein .
General Manager Operations I have carefully gone through Shri Santosh Kumar, Emp.
The period of suspension of respondent was, however, treated as suspension only.
The learned Judges of the High Court had also perused the records placed before them by the Corporation.
A charge sheet was issued to the respondent.
Shri Santosh Kumar has preferred an appeal against the order of penalty of Dismissal, inflicted upon him by GM Ops.
Before the High Court, a solitary companytention was raised on behalf of respondent stating that despite a detailed response preferred by the respondent herein, the Appellate Authority passed the order dated 15.5.2000 without companysidering any of the issues raised by the respondent herein as petitioner in the writ petition.
Aggrieved against the order of dismissal, the respondent preferred Civil Writ No.
IR/1461/ N 113 dated 24.6.97.
11144 of 2000 before the High Court of Punjab Haryana alleging that even though a detailed reply and representation was submitted to the show cause numberice, the same has number been gone into and without appreciating the stand taken by the respondent, the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority have mechanically passed an order affirming the penalty of dismissal upon the respondent.
An appeal was filed against the order of penalty of dismissal.
The incident happened at Hissar Depot and 12 KL of High Speed Diesel was supplied twice from 17.6.1996 to 19.6.1996 against the same challan by the respondent.
The Director Marketing Appellate Authority passed the order rejecting the appeal of the respondent.
The Writ Petition was companytested by the Corporation by filing its companynter in the affidavit.
He was charge sheeted on account of irregular supply of High Speed Diesel to the purchasers without following the procedure.
The Disciplinary Authority after perusing the records and the replies submitted to the show cause numberice together with all papers relating to the disciplinary proceedings and after applying his mind ordered for inflicting upon the respondent the penalty of dismissal as a measure of disciplinary action against him.
Liberty was also reserved to the appellant to re initiate the enquiry from the stage of companysideration by the Punishing Authority and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
1,4,5,6,7 and 8.
It is seen from the impugned order passed by the High Court that the Judges were satisfied that numberreasons whatever had been recorded in either number accepting the issues raised by the respondent in response to the show cause numberice number had the claim of the respondent made in the various grounds raised by him in his appeal been companysidered.
19957, Ex AM Ops Hissar Depots appeal dated 25.3.2000 together with all papers relating to the disciplinary case initiated against him vide charge sheet No.
The respondent joined the appellant Indian Oil Corporation Limited hereinafter referred to as The Corporation in the year 1987.
All papers relating to this case, in respect of respondent, were placed before General Manager Operations , CDA for his perusal and orders.
The Enquiry Officer proposed to inflict upon the respondent the major penalty of dismissal as a measure of disciplinary action against him.
and the imposition of punishment of dismissal from the service.
The respondent is a dismissed employee of the Appellant Corporation.
LAKSHMANAN, J. Director Marketing and General Manager Operations , Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. are the appellants before us.
Dr. AR.
He was posted as Assistant Manager Operation at Hissar Depot of the Corporation in the year 1995.
