Disposed

Kalyan Singh v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors.

Delhi HC12 Mar 2018W.P.(C)/2242/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the continuation of a departmental inquiry after his retirement. The High Court, noting that a reply was pending, allowed filing a reply and granted no specific ruling on the legal question of continued jurisdiction post-retirement.

What did the court decide?

Permission permitted to file Reply within a week; directed second respondent to look into reply and proceed thereafter.

Kalyan Singh Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors. — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~25

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Order: March 12, 2018

¶4

- W.P.(C) 2242/2018 & CM No.9246/2018

¶5

KALYAN SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Baneh Kumar Sinha, Advocate and Ms.Pratibha Sinha, Advocate

¶6

versus

¶7

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr.S.Sirish Kumar, Advocate

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

¶9

O R D E R (ORAL)

¶10

Consequent upon a departmental inquiry, a finding has been returned that the Transfer Certificate of 8^th Class submitted by petitioner is not genuine and vide impugned Communication of 30^th January, 2018, petitioner has been granted a week’s time to submit his Reply to the Inquiry Report ( Annexure P-1 colly. ). Learned counsel for petitioner claims that petitioner had sought extension of time till 28^th February, 2018 to submit a reply, but till date, no reply has been submitted. Reliance is placed upon Standing Orders ( Annexure P-3 ) to submit that there is no provision in it, which permits continuation of the inquiry proceedings after retirement of an employee. It is asserted that petitioner had retired on 28^th February, 2017 and so continuance of inquiry against petitioner is bad in law. No document

¶11

W.P.(C) No.2242/2018

¶12

Page 1 of 2

¶13

has been placed on record to show that discontinuation of the inquiry was sought by petitioner while relying upon Standing Orders ( Annexure P-3 ).

¶14

In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of this petition with permission to petitioner to now file a Reply to the impugned Communication of 30^th January, 2018 within a week and if it is so done, then the second respondent shall look into the said reply and thereafter proceed with the matter if not already done. In case petitioner’s Reply is not accepted, then the reasons for not accepting the reply be conveyed to petitioner so that petitioner may avail of the remedy, as available in law, if need be.

¶15

With aforesaid directions, this petition and the application are disposed of.

¶16

Dasti.

¶17

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE

¶18

MARCH 12, 2018 mamta

¶19

W.P.(C) No.2242/2018

¶20

Page 2 of 2

Kalyan Singh v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalyan Singh v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

F.G. Runda Vs Air India Ltd.

Union of India & Anr. Vs S.K. Verma

Rakesh Kapoor Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Sarah J. Chhotray Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sukhmani Enterprises Vs Commissioner of Trade & Taxes & Anr.

Satyendra Kumar Vs Maharaja Agarsain Public School & Anr.

Voice of Ex Servicemen Society and Ors. Vs Director General of Resettlement Department of Ex Serviceman Welfare Ministry of Defence

Anil Sanghi Vs Income Tax Officer

Sarah J. Chhotray Vs Union of India & Ors.

Shri Narash Kumar and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Rajeev Saxena Vs the Chief General Manager, Bank of Baroda & Ors.

Sonia Narula Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Mohan Lal Vs the Principal Resident Commissioner, J&K House & Ors.

Puneet Sharma & Anr. Vs Union of India & Anr.