HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 708/2023
In
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.69/2022
Rajesh Kumar Singh S/o Shri Bageshwar Singh, Aged About 49
Years, R/o B 504, Skyline Apartment, Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Kota,
Rajasthan
At Present Residing At B-701, Coronation Apartment Neat IIHMR
University, Bhudhsinghpura, Sanganer, Jaipur
----Appellant
Versus
1. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, through its
Chairman And Managing Director, 17, Jamshed Ji Tata
Road, Mumbai, 400020.
2. Director (Marketing) And Disciplinary Authority, Hindustan
Petroleum Corporation Limited, 8, Shoorji Vallabhdas
Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai- 400001.
----Respondents
Connected With D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 709/2023 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4317/2023 Rajesh Kumar Singh S/o Shri Bageshwar Singh, Aged About 49 Years, R/o B 504, Skyline Apartment, Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Kota, Rajasthan, At Present Residing At B-701, Coronation Apartment Neat IIHMR University, Bhudhsinghpura, Sanganer, Jaipur
----Appellant Versus
1. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, through its Chairman And Managing Director, 17, Jamshed Ji Tata Road, Mumbai, 400020.
2. Director (Marketing) And Disciplinary Authority, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, 8, Shoorji Vallabhdas Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai- 400001.
3. Rajnish Mehta, Enquiry Officer And Retd. Executive-
Director, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, R/o 420, Sector-16, Ground Floor, Panchkula, Haryana-
134109
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 09:07:12 PM)
(2 of 3) [SAW-708/2023]
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Mohit Khandelwal Advocate,
Mr. Arihant Samdaria Advocate & Mr.
Aditya Gupta Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Rachit Sharma Advocate &
Mr. Madhav Dadhich Advocate.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA Judgment 04/11/2023
1. Heard.
2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that the institution of departmental enquiry, appointment of Inquiry Officer and its continuance all are illegal and against the provisions of law, settled instructions and guidelines as also in violation of principle of natural justice. He would submit that when the criminal case was instituted, departmental enquiry ought not to have proceeded. The other submission is that the person who was appointed as Inquiry Officer was not independent one but a biased person because he was a vendor in relation to the respondent-employer, therefore, he was not expected to give an independent decision but only that which pleases the employer.
3. The next submission is that the appellant was not given proper opportunity of hearing and many of his witnesses were not allowed to lead evidence to establish his defence. It is also submitted that certain evidences which are not legally admissible, (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 09:07:12 PM) (3 of 3) [SAW-708/2023] have been allowed to be taken into consideration by the Inquiry Officer.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, while denying the grounds raised in these appeals, would submit that the appellant had ample opportunities and the learned Single Judge has left all these issues open for being considered by way of objection before the Disciplinary Authority.
5. Taking into consideration that the enquiry has also been conducted and enquiry report has been submitted by the Inquiry Officer and the appellant is entitled under the law to raise all the objections, which are available to him, against the enquiry report, findings and other grounds, learned Single Judge has disposed off the petitions giving liberty to the appellant to raise all these objections/grievances before the Disciplinary Authority as stated in para-22 of the order impugned.
6. In view of the above developments and the stage at which the writ petitions have been disposed off, we, instead of examining all the grounds, which have been raised, leave the matters to be decided by the Disciplinary Authority in terms of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in para-22 of its order. The liberty as granted to the appellant in the order of the learned Single Judge need not be reiterated again in this order.
7. Appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. (SHUBHA MEHTA),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J Sanjay Kumawat-5-6 (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 09:07:12 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)