Inquiry and Disciplinary Action Timeline
Suppose a Vigilance Inquiry was conducted on an employee, and an inquiry report is prepared. The disciplinary action and appeal department is recommended to take necessary action.
Suppose, since 10 years ago, no disciplinary action or appeal case has been registered, initiated, or declared against the employee by the disciplinary action department. Can any disciplinary action or appeal case, meaning any punishment, be initiated, registered, or declared against such an employee after 10 years have passed since the inquiry and preparation of the inquiry report?
Time Period for Disciplinary Action
What is the time period for taking disciplinary action against such an employee after the vigilance inquiry is completed, and the inquiry report is prepared?
Regards, Sunil
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
Suppose a Vigilance Inquiry was conducted on an employee, and an inquiry report is prepared. The disciplinary action and appeal department is recommended to take necessary action.
Suppose, since 10 years ago, no disciplinary action or appeal case has been registered, initiated, or declared against the employee by the disciplinary action department. Can any disciplinary action or appeal case, meaning any punishment, be initiated, registered, or declared against such an employee after 10 years have passed since the inquiry and preparation of the inquiry report?
Time Period for Disciplinary Action
What is the time period for taking disciplinary action against such an employee after the vigilance inquiry is completed, and the inquiry report is prepared?
Regards, Sunil
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Time Limit for Disciplinary Action in PSUs
There is no specified time limit fixed for initiating disciplinary action in the Conduct and Discipline Rules of PSUs. However, the principle is that the delay must be reasonable and unavoidable; otherwise, the disciplinary action is vitiated.
Interference by the High Court
From the limited facts, it appears you have a strong case for interference by the High Court, as a timely trial is considered a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. Refer to the principles of a speedy trial in Hussainara Khatoon & Ors vs Home Secretary, State Of Bihar, decided by the Supreme Court of India on 12 February 1979. Although it relates to a criminal case, the same principles apply to a departmental inquiry too. You may consult a Labour Law/Constitutional Law specialist.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
1593There is no specified time limit fixed for initiating disciplinary action in the Conduct and Discipline Rules of PSUs. However, the principle is that the delay must be reasonable and unavoidable; otherwise, the disciplinary action is vitiated.
Interference by the High Court
From the limited facts, it appears you have a strong case for interference by the High Court, as a timely trial is considered a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. Refer to the principles of a speedy trial in Hussainara Khatoon & Ors vs Home Secretary, State Of Bihar, decided by the Supreme Court of India on 12 February 1979. Although it relates to a criminal case, the same principles apply to a departmental inquiry too. You may consult a Labour Law/Constitutional Law specialist.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Background of ONGC Term Base Employees Case
This is with respect to my case involving 577 ONGC Term Base Employees during the year 2004, in which my name was at serial no. 549. The case was filed in 2004 and concluded in 2015. The Labor Court, Gujarat High Court, and Supreme Court ordered that all 577 ONGC term base employees be made permanent and provided with rejoining. ONGC complied with this order and issued permanent appointment letters, rejoining 518 employees from January 2005 onwards. However, 59 employees were left out due to resignation, death, termination, and other reasons, with me being shown as terminated among them.
Initially, all 577 term base employees were hired on a 4-year term base contract against 840 permanent sanctioned posts, as proven in court. We received all facilities on par with regular employees. The court declared all 577 as permanent employees, not term base, contract, or casual employees, recruited as per ONGC policies.
Issues with Rejoining and Termination
When the case was filed in December 2004, ONGC discontinued services on 31/12/2004 and conducted interviews in January 2005 for tenure contracts. Most were hired on tenure contracts except a few, including me. Allegations from 2004 led to an informal inquiry with no disciplinary action taken to date.
During the case proceedings, ONGC declared me terminated without evidence. RTI replies stated completion of term, insufficient marks for the 2005 interview, and unsuitability. ONGC mentioned no disciplinary action taken, with no records against me in disciplinary departments.
Question on Disciplinary Action
Can ONGC keep my case on hold due to an informal inquiry from 14 years ago, where no disciplinary action was taken? The matter was not raised in court or RTI during the case finalization in August 2015. ONGC's written statements contradict their actions regarding my termination.
Kindly reply,
Sunil
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
This is with respect to my case involving 577 ONGC Term Base Employees during the year 2004, in which my name was at serial no. 549. The case was filed in 2004 and concluded in 2015. The Labor Court, Gujarat High Court, and Supreme Court ordered that all 577 ONGC term base employees be made permanent and provided with rejoining. ONGC complied with this order and issued permanent appointment letters, rejoining 518 employees from January 2005 onwards. However, 59 employees were left out due to resignation, death, termination, and other reasons, with me being shown as terminated among them.
Initially, all 577 term base employees were hired on a 4-year term base contract against 840 permanent sanctioned posts, as proven in court. We received all facilities on par with regular employees. The court declared all 577 as permanent employees, not term base, contract, or casual employees, recruited as per ONGC policies.
Issues with Rejoining and Termination
When the case was filed in December 2004, ONGC discontinued services on 31/12/2004 and conducted interviews in January 2005 for tenure contracts. Most were hired on tenure contracts except a few, including me. Allegations from 2004 led to an informal inquiry with no disciplinary action taken to date.
During the case proceedings, ONGC declared me terminated without evidence. RTI replies stated completion of term, insufficient marks for the 2005 interview, and unsuitability. ONGC mentioned no disciplinary action taken, with no records against me in disciplinary departments.
Question on Disciplinary Action
Can ONGC keep my case on hold due to an informal inquiry from 14 years ago, where no disciplinary action was taken? The matter was not raised in court or RTI during the case finalization in August 2015. ONGC's written statements contradict their actions regarding my termination.
Kindly reply,
Sunil
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
ONGC has been shifting its stand every now and then and has been adopting an irreconcilable position regarding your status. Since it is now taking a stand to initiate disciplinary action, you have sufficient grounds to challenge the action. As already suggested, you may consult an expert in service matters for this purpose.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi Sunil, in your above reply, you mentioned, "Since it is now taking a stand to initiate disciplinary action." On what basis are you stating the above statement? That implies you have some information from ONGC about my case. Up to now, there has been no sign or movement from ONGC's side regarding taking a stand to initiate disciplinary action against me. Furthermore, there is no legality in raising disciplinary action against me, and it will be null and void since ONGC never sought permission from the court to terminate me, nor did they inform the court about such actions.
My question is, after 14 years since the inquiry was conducted and the report prepared, ONGC has never informed the court about the inquiry or its report, nor have they obtained court permission to terminate me based on any disciplinary action. ONGC even provided me in writing that no disciplinary action was taken against me, indicating that the inquiry and report were fake, forged, or sham. Additionally, in response to my RTI request, ONGC did not mention that I was not selected due to the inquiry, implying that ONGC's handling of this inquiry is a mockery of the RTI Act, indirectly challenging the Government of India.
Furthermore, after such a long period, what is the validity, rationality, legitimacy, legality, authenticity, fairness, objectivity, accuracy, reliability, and significance of such a Vigilance Inquiry and Report? Given ONGC's stance, is there a possibility of them using this inquiry to further delay my case? Doesn't this demonstrate the irresponsibility and carelessness of ONGC's senior officials in making irrelevant statements?
Sunil
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
My question is, after 14 years since the inquiry was conducted and the report prepared, ONGC has never informed the court about the inquiry or its report, nor have they obtained court permission to terminate me based on any disciplinary action. ONGC even provided me in writing that no disciplinary action was taken against me, indicating that the inquiry and report were fake, forged, or sham. Additionally, in response to my RTI request, ONGC did not mention that I was not selected due to the inquiry, implying that ONGC's handling of this inquiry is a mockery of the RTI Act, indirectly challenging the Government of India.
Furthermore, after such a long period, what is the validity, rationality, legitimacy, legality, authenticity, fairness, objectivity, accuracy, reliability, and significance of such a Vigilance Inquiry and Report? Given ONGC's stance, is there a possibility of them using this inquiry to further delay my case? Doesn't this demonstrate the irresponsibility and carelessness of ONGC's senior officials in making irrelevant statements?
Sunil
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Sunil, the Apex court has given a clear verdict to complete any inquiry within a time frame of six months. In this matter, ONGC is engaging in mischievous activities and playing with the lives and futures of the people. The main objective of the PSU unit, which is to cater to the needs of employment, now seems to be completely against their objectives. This is a matter that should be challenged, so seek the help of a renowned lawyer in this field who practices at the High Court level. I believe you are not alone in this matter, so if possible, gather all other aspirants or victims of the case to join the fight.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
You mentioned that the Apex court has provided a clear verdict stating that any inquiry should be completed within a time frame of six months. However, you are unsure about the time frame for taking disciplinary action against an employee once the inquiry process concludes.
You highlighted that you have not received any warning memos, charge sheets, show cause notices, inquiry notices, suspension letters, disciplinary letters, or termination letters from ONGC for any misconduct, bad conduct, ill conduct, fraud, theft, or forgery. Instead, you were informally questioned by an official through a messenger boy/peon back in December 2004. However, even after 14 years, you have not received any communication regarding the outcome of this informal inquiry.
You are questioning whether this informal interaction can be considered a vigilance inquiry and whether disciplinary action can be initiated against you after such a long period without following the proper vigilance inquiry procedure.
Best regards, [Your Name]
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
You highlighted that you have not received any warning memos, charge sheets, show cause notices, inquiry notices, suspension letters, disciplinary letters, or termination letters from ONGC for any misconduct, bad conduct, ill conduct, fraud, theft, or forgery. Instead, you were informally questioned by an official through a messenger boy/peon back in December 2004. However, even after 14 years, you have not received any communication regarding the outcome of this informal inquiry.
You are questioning whether this informal interaction can be considered a vigilance inquiry and whether disciplinary action can be initiated against you after such a long period without following the proper vigilance inquiry procedure.
Best regards, [Your Name]
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Fact-Finding Inquiry vs. Disciplinary Inquiry
You mentioned that an inquiry was an informal inquiry. Was it a preliminary fact-finding inquiry? The general rule is well-established that in a fact-finding inquiry, there is no person who is in the position of an accused or a defendant. The purpose of the inquiry is only to gather material for the information of the Government or the authority concerned. It is only if the material so gathered discloses a prima facie case against a person that a disciplinary inquiry would be held against him. In such a disciplinary inquiry, he would be in the position of a defendant or an accused and would be given a full opportunity to defend himself. Therefore, no question of giving such an opportunity of defending himself in a fact-finding inquiry arises at all.
You need to consult a local lawyer and discuss the matter thoroughly. If there is a reason to take up a legal stand after the examination of known facts/documents, then proceed by using RTI to get further information on your case.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
You mentioned that an inquiry was an informal inquiry. Was it a preliminary fact-finding inquiry? The general rule is well-established that in a fact-finding inquiry, there is no person who is in the position of an accused or a defendant. The purpose of the inquiry is only to gather material for the information of the Government or the authority concerned. It is only if the material so gathered discloses a prima facie case against a person that a disciplinary inquiry would be held against him. In such a disciplinary inquiry, he would be in the position of a defendant or an accused and would be given a full opportunity to defend himself. Therefore, no question of giving such an opportunity of defending himself in a fact-finding inquiry arises at all.
You need to consult a local lawyer and discuss the matter thoroughly. If there is a reason to take up a legal stand after the examination of known facts/documents, then proceed by using RTI to get further information on your case.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi Sunil, I have also used the RTI method, but to date, they have not mentioned anything about such an inquiry or any inquiry report. ONGC also replied to me in RTI that I was not and never terminated from ONGC, and to date, no disciplinary action, appeal case, or step has been initiated or recommended against me.
All of a sudden, in the last RTI reply, ONGC CPIO sent me a copy of the inquiry report with a forged/fake signature of mine over a statement.
Please tell me what I should do.
Best regards, Sunil
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
All of a sudden, in the last RTI reply, ONGC CPIO sent me a copy of the inquiry report with a forged/fake signature of mine over a statement.
Please tell me what I should do.
Best regards, Sunil
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Sunil, you are mixing up the things. At present, you are not an employee of ONGC. The vigilance inquiry was initiated while you were part and parcel of ONGC. To complete the inquiry, frame charges, issue a show cause, or take any action is the responsibility of ONGC, not the employee. The lapse lies with ONGC, not with you. It is more favorable for you to benefit from the mistake made.
Instead of moving in another direction, try to capitalize on the opportunity by taking the matter to court. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Let things unfold naturally. If any action is initiated against you by ONGC, challenge it in court for a final resolution. If they are not taking any action, it means they lack substance and are merely prolonging the process.
Move to court.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Instead of moving in another direction, try to capitalize on the opportunity by taking the matter to court. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Let things unfold naturally. If any action is initiated against you by ONGC, challenge it in court for a final resolution. If they are not taking any action, it means they lack substance and are merely prolonging the process.
Move to court.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Inquiry and Disciplinary Actions After 14 Years
As you mentioned earlier, at present, I am not an employee of ONGC. The preliminary vigilance inquiry was conducted in December 2004. The completion of the inquiry, framing of charges, issuing show cause notices, or suspension letters is the responsibility of ONGC, not the employee.
My question is whether ONGC officials can, as a precautionary measure to correct their mistake, issue me the aforementioned documents such as inquiry notices, charge sheets, show cause notices, or suspension letters now, even though 14 years have passed since the initial inquiry, despite my no longer being an employee of ONGC.
Can we consider the initial inquiry as fake or forged since 14 years have passed (2018-2004)?
Regards, Sunil
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
As you mentioned earlier, at present, I am not an employee of ONGC. The preliminary vigilance inquiry was conducted in December 2004. The completion of the inquiry, framing of charges, issuing show cause notices, or suspension letters is the responsibility of ONGC, not the employee.
My question is whether ONGC officials can, as a precautionary measure to correct their mistake, issue me the aforementioned documents such as inquiry notices, charge sheets, show cause notices, or suspension letters now, even though 14 years have passed since the initial inquiry, despite my no longer being an employee of ONGC.
Can we consider the initial inquiry as fake or forged since 14 years have passed (2018-2004)?
Regards, Sunil
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
They will not be able to justify this delay. You need to consult a lawyer for best advice,as you have some serious apprehension about the whole thing.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Sir,
What is the procedure for conducting and completing a vigilance complaint? What are the steps involved from the initial preliminary inquiry until the final decision involving termination steps or other final disciplinary action?
Kindly tell me.
Sunil
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
What is the procedure for conducting and completing a vigilance complaint? What are the steps involved from the initial preliminary inquiry until the final decision involving termination steps or other final disciplinary action?
Kindly tell me.
Sunil
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)CiteHR is an AI-augmented HR knowledge and collaboration platform, enabling HR professionals to solve real-world challenges, validate decisions, and stay ahead through collective intelligence and machine-enhanced guidance. Join Our Platform.
DISCIPLINARY ACTION.ppt
Record of disciplinary action.doc