Gujarat High Court
Sr. Divisional Manager, Life Insurance ... vs Pravinbhai T Trivedi on 6 February, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia, Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/167/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 167 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18713 of 2011
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2024
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 167 of 2025
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 168 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18713 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA - sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI - sd/-
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
================================================================
SR. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
Versus
PRAVINBHAI T TRIVEDI
================================================================
Appearance:
MR YOGI K GADHIA(5913) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
IG JOSHI(8726) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 06/02/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. ADMIT. Learned advocate Mr.I.G.Joshi waives service of
notice of admission on behalf of the respondent.
2. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.I.G.Joshi appearing for the
respondent-employee in Letters Patent Appeal No.167 of 2025 and
the appellant of Letters Patent Appeal No.168 of 2025 has urged
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/167/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2025
undefined
that since the Court is inclined to remand the matter to learned
Single Judge, appropriate time may be fixed for the disposal of the
writ petition, as the employee is suffering from cancer and is 75
years old. It is submitted that the employee was constrained to file
the present Letters Patent Appeal since the respondent i.e. Life
Insurance Corporation of India has assailed the order passed by
learned Single Judge by filing the captioned Letters Patent Appeal
No.167 of 2025. Thus, we have taken the Letters Patent Appeal
No.167 of 2025 as a lead matter.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Yogi K. Gadhia appearing for the
appellant-Corporation has submitted that the impugned judgment
and order passed by learned Single Judge is required to be quashed
and set aside as the learned Single Judge has neither dealt with the
findings of the departmental proceedings nor that of the Tribunal,
i.e. the Central Government Industrial Tribunal ('CGIT' in short). It
is submitted that the findings of the disciplinary authority and the
order of the Tribunal is set aside only on the ground of length in
service. It is submitted that there was serious charges of misconduct
on the employee, which was proved in the departmental inquiry,
and also upheld by the Tribunal.
4. There is also a prior history of remand of the departmental
proceedings which we are not finding it necessary to incorporate in
our order as we are remanding the matter to learned Single Judge
since the order passed by learned Single Judge is bereft of
reasoning and the punishment orders and the order passed by the
Tribunal are set aside only by assigning the reason that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/167/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2025
undefined
employee has completed 25 years of service. Learned Single Judge
has altered the punishment of recovery of the amount and removal
of service to that of granting Rs.7,50,000/- towards lump sum
compensation as full and final settlement.
5. The brief facts which are established from the record are that
the respondent was the employee of the appellant-Corporation and
was serving as a Record clerk and was suspended from services in
view of the contemplation of departmental proceedings. There were
two charge-sheets issued to him on 13.09.1987 and ultimately, the
same culminated into imposition of punishment on the respondent
employee. The punishments, which were imposed by the
Corporation in the first departmental inquiry, were - (i) reduction of
basic pay to the minimum and order of recovery; and (ii) in the
second departmental inquiry, he was removed from service. These
punishments are imposed in view of the Life Insurance Corporation
of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960, more particularly Regulation
39(1)(c) thereof, which refers to recovery from pay and Regulation
39(1)(f), which refers to removal from service.
6. The respondent-employee assailed the aforesaid order of
punishment by filing Reference ITC No.94 of 1998 (Old) / Reference
CGITA No.117 of 2004 (New). By a comprehensive award dated
07.06.2011, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad passed the
following order :-
"(23) In view of the findings given in the fore goings, the
following award is passed. The action of the Management of LIC
of India imposing the penalty of reduction of basic pay to the
minimum and order of recovery of Rs.23261.10/- under Regulation
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/167/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2025
undefined
39(1)(c) and (d) of the LIC of India Staff Regulation 1960 vide
punishment order dated 22.11.1987 and the imposition of penalty
of removal from the services vide punishment order dated
24.11.1997 under Regulation 39(1)(f) of the LIC of India Staff
Regulation 1960 to the delinquent workman Shri Pravin T. Trivedi
Ex-Record Clerk is justified. But the action of the Management of
LIC of India in also imposing penalty to recovery of Rs.44975/- as
per Regulation 39(1)(c) of LIC of India Staff Regulation 1960 from
the delinquent workman is not justified and so, this part of the
punishment order is set aside only.
The Reference is rejected on contest. Parties to bear cost. This is
my award."
7. We have perused the order passed by the CGIT, Ahmedabad,
wherein the Tribunal, after threadbare appreciation of facts of the
departmental proceedings and also the submissions advanced by the
respective authorities and after considering the documentary
evidence, has ultimately passed the aforesaid order. The Tribunal
has upheld the order of punishment of removal dated 24.11.1997,
whereas imposition of penalty of reduction of basic pay to the
minimum and order of recovery of Rs.23,261.10/- is also upheld
and only recovery of Rs.44,975/-, which has been affected from the
respondent-employee under Regulation 39(1)(c) of the Life Insurance
Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960, has been quashed
and set aside.
8. Learned Single Judge has set aside the order passed by the
learned Tribunal by observing as under :-
"7. From bare reading and perusal of the record, it appears that
the workman has joined the Life Insurance Corporation in the
year 1972 and he was worked for almost 25 years. Considering
the length of the service of the workman and the service record
of the workman, the impugned order passed by the C.G.I.T,
Ahmedabad deserves interference by this Court.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/167/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2025
undefined
8. It appears that serious charges are levelled against the
workman. Further, now the corporation has lost confidence in the
workman and therefore, it is desirable that instead of
reinstatement and any other benefits, the concerned workman
would be awarded lumpsum compensation in lieu of reinstatement
and other consequential benefits.
9. In view of the above and considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and considering the fact that now the
workman has already reached the age of superannuation and
keeping in the mind the length of service of the workman, this
Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be
subserved, if amount of Rs.7,50,000/- toward lumpsum
compensation is paid to the workman.
10. Hence, the respondent- Life Insurance Corporation is hereby
directed to pay Rs.7,50,000/- towards lumpsum compensation as
full and final settlement to the concerned workman, after
verifying bank details of the concerned workman and after due
process. The same shall be paid within period of eight weeks
from the date of receipt of copy of the writ of the order, failing
which the same shall carry 6% interest till the actual payment is
to be made to the concerned workman."
9. A bare perusal of the aforesaid order of the learned Single
Judge reflects that the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal
and the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority has been
set aside only on the sole ground that the workman had completed
25 years and ultimately, learned Single Judge has awarded an
amount of Rs.7,50,000/- towards lump-sum compensation towards
full and final settlement. Except the aforesaid findings, the
judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge is bereft of any
reason or discussion of the facts, findings of the disciplinary
authority and also on the findings of the Tribunal. We do not
subscribe to the view expressed by the learned Single Judge of
awarding compensation. The orders passed by the disciplinary
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/167/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2025
undefined
authority cannot be set aside and altered to that of payment of
compensation, merely because an employee has rendered long
service. Such an approach is an anathema to the rules governing
the disciplinary proceedings, and also to the discretion of the
disciplinary authority in imposing the punishment in wake of
gravity of proved misconduct. Learned Single Judge has also not
discussed the basis on which an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- is
determined as compensation. There is no discussion on the findings
of the disciplinary proceedings, the proportionality of the
punishment imposed and the validity of proceedings and the final
order passed by the Tribunal.
10. Thus, we have no other option but to remand the matter so
that the facts / legality of the inquiry proceedings, the imposition
of punishment, the findings of the disciplinary authority and the
Tribunal are examined and appreciated. We quash and set aside the
order of the learned Single Judge and remand the matter.
Registry shall list the matter before the learned Single Judge
assigned such a roster. Since the respondent-employee is suffering
from cancer and is 75 years, and the writ petition of the year 2011,
we request the learned Single Judge to dispose of the captioned
writ petition at the earliest. It will be open for the employee to file
an appropriate application seeking early disposal of the matter. It
goes without saying that we have not expressed anything on merits.
The present order may not be construed as confirmation of the
findings of the Tribunal. All the contentions of the respective
parties are left open.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/167/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2025
undefined
11. Thus, Letters Patent Appeal No.167 of 2025 stands allowed to
the aforesaid extent and Letters Patent Appeal No.168 of 2025
stands dismissed.
12. Accordingly, the civil application(s) stand/s disposed of.
Sd/- .
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
Sd/- .
(GITA GOPI, J)
CAROLINE / DB # 80 & # 81
