terminated from HPCL
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 30 April 2010
This query is : Resolved
Dear sirs,
I wish to file a writ petition against HPCL against my illegal term ination from their servises and petition is ready , shall be thankful to get it vetted from learned friends of this community , shall be thankful if Learned advocates could give me their mail id so that a soft copy of the petition could be sent to them.Petition will be filed in Hon'ble Mumbai High Court
I shall be indeed thankful for this help.
mahendrakumar
(Expert) 01 May 2010
it would be better to avail the services of an advocate specialised in handling service matters locally,as drafting of petitions and its style differ from individual to individual.
unless the drafted petition is presented by the one who drafted it,the drafts may not have the desired impact on your case.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 01 May 2010
Dear shri Mahendra ,
I am fully aware of it , the petition has been drafted by a learned counsel only , my objective if someone of you could just glance through it and give some opinion. case will be argued by advocate and the senior advocate in the court .This help I need for my satisfaction only . If it is o.k with you kindly give me your id so that I can mail it to you.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 08 February 2011
167. In the conspectus of the facts and circumstances the Petitioner has to most respectfully state that the entire Enquiry conducted is a sham and the entire gamut of the Enquiry has not been followed viz:
a) Witness examined and testimony of the witness who had deposed in a separate Enquiry not related at all to the petitoner’s Enquiry was relied upon by the Enquiry officer the Appellate Authroity has denounced the testimony of the witnesses as NOT RELIED upon by either the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate authority and thus the Petitioner is at pains to comprehend the relevance of the Enquiry.
b) Be that as it may the petitoenr states that the Respondent have illegally and in abject ignorance of the rules and the law in the matter relied upon the evidence and ratified the act of the Enquiry officer of the Enquiry Officer having used evidence of witness conducted in some other Enquiry and having read it as evidence against the Petitioner. The said witness has never been produced as a witness in the inquiry conducted against the Petitioner and the Petitioner was never given an opportunity to cross examine the said witness thus the entire Enquiry stands vitiated.
c) The documents produced were not supplied to the Petitioner and were not proved by producing the author of the document as a witness without according an opportunity to the Petitioner to effectively defend himself.
d) Not only the Enquiry officer but even at the appellate stage the Respondent No.4 sitting in appeal has succeeded in creating a New charge which was never an imputation of charge in the Charge sheet namely “loss of business credibility of the Corporation which was assiduously built up over years with customers, and other important stake holders including the Government of India etc., and …” thus the Enquiry stands vitiated.
e) The Respondent No.9 who has been arrayed in his personal capacity sat in judgment over an issue in which he was directly and substantially involved in his capacity as Respondent No.5 namely the Director – HR which vitiates the impugned order.
f) Key Witnesses were not produced even upon insistence of the Petitioner to be produced to be examined who could have led to the truth and the veil could be lifted to arrive at the truth of the matter.
g) The main witness the Respondent No.6, G.M. HR(Mktg.) of the Corporation, the person in charge of the website, and many other witness key to the issues were never produced who could have testified so that the truth could be revealed.
h) Emails produced were of no relevance in the absence of the TCP / IP addresses and thus the emails on record are of no consequence as all the emails are copies of recipients of the email. Not a single email has been produced from the mail box of the sent mail.
i) The Enquiry officer has flouted established norms and procedures in the conduct of the Enquiry and thus valuable opportunity has been denied to the Petitioner thereby the Enquiry officer and the Respondent have gravely violated and flouted principles of natural justice.
j) The Petitioner’s objection to the appointment of the Enquiry Officer which the Petitioner expressed on account the Petitioner’s apprehension of getting justice at his hands was expressed in writing and which was rejected which in turn has been proved to be right. Hence justice has not been done.
k) The Respondent have failed to draw the distinction between the role of the office bearer and that the acts of the Petitioner were acts done in good faith and for and on behalf of the association and that of a role of an employee.
l) The Enquiry officer as well as the Respondent No.6 have failed to consider that none of the imputations as contained in the Memorandum of the Article of Charges are as per the misconduct enumerated in the Conduct rules.
m) Extraneous material has been used against the Petitioner without affording him an opportunity to rebut causing serious prejudice to the Petitioner in his defence.
n) The Petitioner’s unblemished impeccable service record has been overlooked and a slip shod inquiry has been conducted as a mere farce with a pre-planned, predetermined motive with a design to victimise the Petitioner to settle personal scores.
o) It has been held by the Apex court that strike in any way in a democracy is the only way to vent the feelings and grievances and thus is not unconstitutional.
p) The documents stand vitiated as no opportunity was ever offered for cross examination nor the author of the document was ever produced to establish the veracity and authenticity of the document to prove any of the documents.
q) The entire gamut of the Enquiry is bizarre and no procedure has been followed with no meaningful hearing.
r) No opportunity has been provided for inspection of documents at any time.
s) No oral hearing has been granted to the Petitioner at any stage and all orders have been passed behind the Petitioner’s back. The entire proceedings disclose that no efforts have been made to ensure fair dispensation of justice.
t) The entire facts as quoted, construed and considered by the Enquiry officer and the Respondent No.6 is disputed and not admitted at all.
some learned counsel may view the above grounds and give their valauble opinion these are the grounds in my petition for reinstatement in service
