IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16807 of 2010 SILAS AIND, SON OF LATE PAULUS AIND, RESIDENT OF FLAT NO. AC-3H, 9TH PHASE, ADARSH NAGAR, SONARI, POLICE STATION- SONARI, JAMSHEDPUR, DISTRICT- SINGHBHUM EAST JHARKHAND, PRESENTLY POSTED AS SENIOR MANAGER, (LPG) INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., BIHAR STATE OFFICE, LOK NAYAK JAI PRAKASH BHAVAN, DAK BUNGLOW CHAURAHA, POLICE STATION- PATNA (KOTWALI) PATNA:---PETITIONER . Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS, SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., CORPORATE OFFICE, 3079/3, SADIQ NAGAR, J.B. JITO MARG, NEW DELHI. 3. THE DIRECTOR (MARKETING) INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., MARKETING DIVISION, HEAD OFFICE, INDIAN OIL BHAWAN, G-9, ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI- 400 051. 4. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (LPG) INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., MARKETING DIVISION HEAD OFFICE INDIAN OIL BHAVAN, G-9, ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI- 400 051. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh, Senior Advocate & M/S Brisketu Sharan Pandey & Gyan Shankar, Advocates. For the IOC : Mr. K.D. Chatterjee, Senior Advocate. & M/S Anil Kumar Sinha & Amlesh Kumar Verma, Advocates. For the Union of India : Mr. Dwivedy Surendra, C.G.C. ===== 2. 04.10.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the “Corporation”), who has prayed for time to seek instruction and to file counter affidavit in the matter. Considering the nature of the order which this Court is proposing to pass, prayer to file counter affidavit is being refused. 2. Petitioner, who served as Senior Manager, (L.P.G.-Ops.), Bihar State Office of the Corporation, is aggrieved by the suspension order dated - 2 - 29.3.2010, Annexure-1, issued in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. The charge-sheet in the light of the suspension order was not served on the petitioner within a reasonable time. i.e. until 28.06.2010. Petitioner submitted representation dated 29.06.2010, Annexure-3 requesting the authorities to revoke the suspension order issued in contemplation of the departmental proceeding on the ground that the charge-sheet has not been served on the petitioner inspite of passage of reasonable time. The representation of the petitioner has been rejected under orders dated 14.09.2010, Annexure- 4, perusal whereof does not indicate any reason as to why the charge-sheet has not been served on the petitioner till the date of the order rejecting his representation. 3. For the failure of the authorities not to indicate reason for not issuing the charge-sheet even after passage of reasonable time of the issue of the suspension order, I set aside the order rejecting the representation of the petitioner dated 14.09.2010, Annexure-4 and remit back the matter to the authorities of the Corporation to revisit the request of the petitioner to revoke his suspension and if the authorities are not inclined to revoke the suspension - 3 - or to serve the memo of charge within a reasonable time not exceeding one month from the date of receipt of this order then to indicate reason(s) for failure to serve the charge-sheet by passing fresh order in the matter within the same time. In any case the charge-sheet be served on the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of this order and the proceeding be concluded within another two months and with such observation, the writ application is disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)