The Zonal Manager And Appellate ... vs Sri. Krishnappa Konchady
2023 Latest Caselaw 723 Kant

                            1

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023

                        PRESENT

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                          AND

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

               W.A.No.313/2021 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

1.     THE ZONAL MANAGER & APPELLATE
       AUTHORITY, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION
       OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE, JEEVAN BHAGYA
       SAIFABAD, HYDERABAD - 500 063.

2.     THE SENIOR DIVISION MANGER
       LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION
       OF INDIA, DIVISIONAL OFFICE
       JEEVAN KRISHNA, AJJARKAD
       UDUPI - 576 101, (THE APPELLANTS
       ARE REPRESENTED BY
       SRI BHEEMASENA RAO,T
       HE AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
       AND THE SECRETARY LEGAL
       CELL (ZO) UNIT, HAYES ROAD
       BANGALORE - 560 025.)
       (APPELLANTS ARE THE RESPONDENTS
       BEFORE THE LEARNED SINGLE
       JUDGE WP NO 6382/2015).          ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI BHAT RAMACHANDRA GANAPATI, ADV.)

AND:

SRI KRISHNAPPA KONCHADY
S/O LATE GURUVAMOGERA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT AT
BRANCH NO.1, LIC OF INDIA
MANGALORE, RESIDING NEAR
S.R. HP SCHOOL, KONCHADY POST
                              2

MANGALURU - 575 008, (RESPONDENT
IS THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
IN W.P. NO.6382/2015).                     ...RESPONDENT

(BY SMT. DEEPASHREE D., ADV., FOR
    SRI NAGENDRA NAIK, ADV.,)

      THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 10/12/2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN WP NO.6382/2015 BY DISMISSING THE WRIT
PETITION BEARING NO. 6382/2015 AND TO PASS SUCH
OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, VISHWAJITH SHETTY     J.,  DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

                     JUDGMENT

This intra court appeal has been filed assailing the

order dated 10.12.2020 passed by the learned Single

Judge of this Court in W.P.No.6382/2015.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and

also perused the material available on record.

3. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated

are, the respondent was appointed as Assistant in the

appellant-Corporation in the year 1989. The post of

Cashier was being manned by the Assistants whose

names were empanelled on rotation basis. The

respondent had submitted a representation to delete his

name from the panel of Assistants who were required to

do the job of cashier on rotation. Inspite of his request,

the Corporation had refused to delete his name from the

panel of Assistants and it is under these circumstances,

the respondent had refused to discharge the duties of

cashier. In this background, a disciplinary enquiry was

initiated against the respondent and pursuant to the

enquiry report dated 11.01.2014, after issuance of show

cause notice to the respondent, the order of punishment

was passed against the respondent wherein the basic pay

of the respondent was reduced by one stage in the time

scale that was applicable to him. As against the said

order, the respondent preferred an appeal and even the

said appeal was dismissed, and therefore, he had

approached this Court in W.P.No.6382/2015. The learned

Single Judge of this Court vide the order impugned had

allowed the writ petition, quashed the orders passed by

the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority and

had directed the appellant-Corporation to consider the

request of the respondent for removal of his name from

the panel of Assistants within a prescribed time. Being

aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is before this

Court.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that

the name of the respondent was not included in the penal

of Assistants and on the other hand, the respondent was

required to work as Cashier on rotation basis. He submits

that the learned Single Judge has erred in considering

that the name of the respondent was in the panel of

Assistants. He also submits that the Circular dated

16.05.2009 is not applicable to the case of the

respondent, whereas respondent is covered by the

Circular dated 02.11.1985.

5. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent

submits that after coming into force of the Circular dated

16.05.2009, the existing special panel of Assistants that

was created under the earlier Circular dated 03.11.2007

and even the Assistants who were handling the post of

Cashier on rotation basis were also not required to

perform the duty of cashier as the post of cashier was

filled up by direct recruitment under the Circular of the

year 2009.

6. It is not in dispute that the respondent was

appointed as Assistant in the year 1989 and as per the

Circular of the year 1985, he was also handling the post

of cashier on rotation basis for a specific period. The

material on record would go to show that the respondent

had made a representation with a request to delete his

name from the panel of Assistants that was maintained

by the Corporation for the purpose of handling the post

of cashier. The Circular dated 16.05.2009 provides for

appointment of cashiers directly and it also states that

with the selection of cashier under the present scheme,

the existing special panel as created under the four

months tenure in terms of the Circular of the year 2007

shall stand abolished and the employees in the panel as

well as the cashiers who are currently handling counter of

the cashier under rotation basis were required to apply

afresh. Therefore, after coming into force of the Circular

of the year 2009, the prayer made by the respondent to

delete his name from the panel of Assistants which was

maintained by the Corporation for the purpose of

handling the post of cashier ought to have been

considered positively by the Corporation. Though the

respondent had informed his unwillingness to handle the

post of cashier, the Corporation was virtually compelling

him to handle the said post which he had refused and it

is in this background, the disciplinary proceedings was

initiated against him.

7. The Disciplinary Authority as well as the

Appellate Authority had failed to appreciate that after

coming into force of the Circular dated 16.05.2009, the

earlier Circular dated 03.11.2007 was replaced by the

Circular of the year 2009 and as per the terms of the

Circular of the year 2009, the respondent's request for

deletion of his name from the panel of Assistants ought

to have been considered by them. It is under these

circumstances, the learned Single Judge has held that the

disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent

as well as the order of penalty passed against him were

not justified and accordingly, the writ petition was

allowed.

8. We do not find any illegality or irregularity in the

said order passed by the learned Single Judge and the

same does not calls for interference by this Court.

Therefore, we are of the considered view that the appeal

is devoid of merits and accordingly, the same is

dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

KK