Allahabad High Court
Hashmuddin vs Life Insurance Corporation Of ... on 7 July, 2022
Bench: Pritinker Diwaker, Ashutosh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 29
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 338 of 2022
Appellant :- Hashmuddin
Respondent :- Life Insurance Corporation of India and 2 others
Counsel for Appellant :- Bhanu Prakash Verma
Counsel for Respondent :- Siddharth Singhal
Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J.
Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.
1. This intra-court appeal has been filed by a unsuccessful petitioner questioning the judgment and order dated 30.3.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ-A No. 18351 of 2021 (Hashmuddin versus Life Insurance Corporation of India through its Chairman, Mumbai and 2 others) whereby the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the impugned order in the writ petition and proceeded to dispose of the same with the direction to the appellant-petitioner to file reply to the charge-sheet within a period of three weeks and has also directed the disciplinary proceedings to be concluded within a period of three months from the date of submission of the reply and within two months after submission of enquiry report. It has been further provided in the order that in the event enquiry is not completed as directed within the time prescribed, the appellant-petitioner would stand reinstated on the post of Cashier and shall be paid special allowances.
2. Record reveals that the writ petition was filed questioning the correctness of the order of reinstatement of the petitioner in the capacity as Office Assistant and not as Cashier on which post, he had been discharging duties at the time of suspension. It was argued before the writ Court that once the respondents had revoked the suspension in the capacity of Cashier, he was liable to be reinstated in the same capacity as a Cashier and his transfer as Office Assistant from Bulandshahr to Kasganj was not justified.
3. The writ petition was resisted by the respondents by urging that the post of Office Assistant is substantive post and the petitioner has a lien against the said post. The petitioner was discharging functions as Cashier under order dated 21.4.2018 and the post of Office Assistant and Cashier belong to the same cadre. The appellant-petitioner should not have any grievance for his reinstatement on the post of Office Assistant and for his transfer from Bulandshahr to Kasganj.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in law in not interfering in the order impugned in the writ petition as he did not take into consideration the fact that as a Cashier, the petitioner was being paid special allowances which now stand denied on his reinstatement on the post of Office Assistant.
5. We have heard Shri Bhanu Prakash Verma, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Ms. Divya Chaurasiya, learned counsel for the respondents and have perused the record.
6. Having gone through the order impugned, we find that the learned Single Judge has meticulously considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner. Learned Single Judge has considered the fact that charges levelled against the appellant-petitioner were serious and that it was the prerogative of the employer to decide the place of posting and discretion to take particular work from its employee. Learned Single Judge based on the aforesaid proposition justified the action of the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India to transfer the appellant-petitioner from Bulandshahr to Kasganj and reinstate him on the post of Office Assistant instead of Cashier.
7. We find no infirmity in the reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge as also the conclusion drawn and the directions issued under the order impugned. We find that the directions of the learned Single Judge to conclude the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant-petitioner within a specified time, after calling for a reply from him, is also perfectly justified. We find no error or illegality in the order and directions issued by the learned Single Judge so as to warrant interference under the special appellate jurisdiction. The intra-court appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 7.7.2022
Ravi Prakash
(Ashutosh Srivastava, J.) (Pritinker Diwaker, J.)
