Rajesh Kumar Singh S/O Shri ... vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 6494 Raj/2

      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



                                     (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,

(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

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)