IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.16807 of 2010
SILAS AIND, SON OF LATE PAULUS AIND, RESIDENT OF FLAT NO.
AC-3H, 9TH PHASE, ADARSH NAGAR, SONARI, POLICE STATION- SONARI,
JAMSHEDPUR, DISTRICT- SINGHBHUM EAST JHARKHAND, PRESENTLY POSTED AS
SENIOR MANAGER, (LPG) INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., BIHAR STATE OFFICE,
LOK NAYAK JAI PRAKASH BHAVAN, DAK BUNGLOW CHAURAHA, POLICE
STATION- PATNA (KOTWALI) PATNA:---PETITIONER .
Versus
1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF
PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS, SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW
DELHI.
2. THE CHAIRMAN, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., CORPORATE
OFFICE, 3079/3, SADIQ NAGAR, J.B. JITO MARG, NEW DELHI.
3. THE DIRECTOR (MARKETING) INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.,
MARKETING DIVISION, HEAD OFFICE, INDIAN OIL BHAWAN, G-9,
ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI- 400 051.
4. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (LPG) INDIAN OIL CORPORATION
LTD., MARKETING DIVISION HEAD OFFICE INDIAN OIL BHAVAN,
G-9, ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI- 400 051.
-----------
For the petitioner : Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh, Senior Advocate
&
M/S Brisketu Sharan Pandey & Gyan Shankar, Advocates.
For the IOC : Mr. K.D. Chatterjee, Senior Advocate.
&
M/S Anil Kumar Sinha & Amlesh Kumar Verma, Advocates.
For the Union of India : Mr. Dwivedy Surendra, C.G.C.
=====
2. 04.10.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner
and the counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation
Limited (hereinafter referred to as the “Corporation”),
who has prayed for time to seek instruction and to
file counter affidavit in the matter. Considering the
nature of the order which this Court is proposing to
pass, prayer to file counter affidavit is being refused.
2. Petitioner, who served as Senior Manager,
(L.P.G.-Ops.), Bihar State Office of the Corporation,
is aggrieved by the suspension order dated
-2-
29.3.2010, Annexure-1, issued in contemplation of a
departmental proceeding. The charge-sheet in the
light of the suspension order was not served on the
petitioner within a reasonable time. i.e. until
28.06.2010. Petitioner submitted representation
dated 29.06.2010, Annexure-3 requesting the
authorities to revoke the suspension order issued in
contemplation of the departmental proceeding on the
ground that the charge-sheet has not been served on
the petitioner inspite of passage of reasonable time.
The representation of the petitioner has been
rejected under orders dated 14.09.2010, Annexure-
4, perusal whereof does not indicate any reason as to
why the charge-sheet has not been served on the
petitioner till the date of the order rejecting his
representation.
3. For the failure of the authorities not to
indicate reason for not issuing the charge-sheet even
after passage of reasonable time of the issue of the
suspension order, I set aside the order rejecting the
representation of the petitioner dated 14.09.2010,
Annexure-4 and remit back the matter to the
authorities of the Corporation to revisit the request
of the petitioner to revoke his suspension and if the
authorities are not inclined to revoke the suspension
-3-
or to serve the memo of charge within a reasonable
time not exceeding one month from the date of
receipt of this order then to indicate reason(s) for
failure to serve the charge-sheet by passing fresh
order in the matter within the same time. In any
case the charge-sheet be served on the petitioner
within two months from the date of receipt of this
order and the proceeding be concluded within
another two months and with such observation, the
writ application is disposed of.
(V.N.Sinha,J.)
P.K.P.