Gugulothu Rama Naik v. Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO W.P.Nos.37121, 36187, 37852 and 39032 of 2013 and W.P. Nos.16672 & 16690 of 2016 COMMON ORDER:

Heard the learned counsel for petitioners, and learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents. All these writ petitions are being disposed of with the consent of counsel.

The case of the petitioners in all these writ petitions is that they are working as Field Operators in respondent No.2 organization. They have applied to the said post pursuant to the advertisement made on 28.03.2011 and they were appointed after following due procedure of selection by proceedings dated 25.05.2012 for a fixed period of four years tenure. When they were discharging their duties, respondent No.2 issued a show cause notice asking them to show cause as to why their services should not be terminated in terms of Clause H(v) of the terms and conditions of appointment order on the allegation that the experience certificates produced by them could not be substantiated/verified. It was also stated that when respondent No.

2 sought information from the companies, which gave the experience certificate, they did not respond to their communication in order to confirm the genuineness of the said experience certificates. The said show cause notice was challenged in these cases except in W.P.Nos.16672 and 16690 of 2016. This Court by order dated 18.12.2013 while issuing notice before admission granted stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the said show cause notice, as a result of which, no enquiry could take place.

years came to an end.

The petitioner in W.P. No.16690 of 2016 submitted his explanation after the receipt of show cause notice, but filed the said writ petition challenging the action of respondent in not continuing the services of petitioner beyond 30.05.2016. Similarly, in W.P. No.16672 of 2016, the petitioners, who earlier filed the above batch of cases, challenged the action of respondent in not continuing their services beyond completion of the period of four years.

Now, it is consented by both the counsel that all these writ petitions can be disposed of by the following order: Since the petitioners in all these writ petitions received show cause notices, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are willing to face the enquiry and cooperate with the enquiry process. In that view of the matter, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that no further orders are necessary as the respondents would conduct the enquiry and take appropriate decision in the matter, after giving due opportunity to the petitioners, in accordance with law. In view of the above, all these Writ Petitions are disposed of, except W.P. Nos.16672 and 16690 of 2016, which are dismissed, as no orders can be passed since the tenure of petitioners therein was completed and their continuance would be subject to further orders to be passed after enquiry. No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in these Writ Petitions shall stand closed.

_______________________________ A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J 09.06.2016 MVA