High CourtsSingle Bench(2018) 05 DEL CK 0356

SH. RAVINDER YADAV vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Delhi High Court · Decided on 24 May 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
SUNIL GAUR
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
W.P.(C) 5651 OF 2018 & CM 22048 OF 2018

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

17 paragraphs · 333 words

SUNIL GAUR , J.

1.

Impugned order of 1st July, 2015 (Annexure P-2) inflicts penalty of ‘removal from service’ upon petitioner, who was working as Executive

Operations at Mathura Installation in respondent-Corporation. The allegations against petitioner were of excess/over filling of the tanker in question for

which he had no explanation to offer. Consequent upon the departmental inquiry, the Inquiry Officer had come to a conclusion that petitioner had

allowed the driver of the tanker in question to purposely fill excess petroleum product (which is highly inflammable and hazardous) over and above the

dip line for personal gains at the cost of corporation and in this manner, petitioner had put the safety of tank/lorry and its crew and Mathura Installation

in danger as any mishap due to over filling of the hazardous petroleum product in the tank/lorry would have blemished company’s brand image.

Terming the misconduct of petitioner as dishonest, malicious and with corrupt intent, penalty of ‘removal from service’ has been inflicted upon

petitioner, which is under challenge in this petition.

2.Despite service of advance notice, there is no Representation on behalf of contesting Respondent No. 2.

3.The departmental proceedings initiated against petitioner are under the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Management Staff (Conduct, Discipline and

Appeal) Rules, 1976. As is evident from the aforesaid Rules, impugned order is appealable. Though this petition has been filed nearly after three

years, but in the facts and circumstances of this case, it is deemed appropriate to permit petitioner to file an appeal against impugned order before the

Appellate Authority within three weeks from today. If any such appeal is filed by petitioner, then it be considered by Appellate Authority on merits

while not insisting upon the delay aspect. It is expected that the appeal so filed, shall be expeditiously considered and decided.

4.Second respondent be apprised of this order forthwith, to ensure its compliance.

5.With aforesaid directions, this petition and the application are accordingly disposed of. Copy of this order be given dasti to petitioner’s counsel.