Karnataka High Court

Lic Of India vs Sri. R Lokanatha on 24 October, 2024

                                                   -1-
                                                              NC: 2024:KHC:43028-DB
                                                                WA No. 439 of 2023




                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                               DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

                                                PRESENT
                              THE HON'BLE MR. N.V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                                  AND
                                 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND
                                  WRIT APPEAL NO. 439 OF 2023 (S-RES)
                       BETWEEN:

                       1.   LIC OF INDIA, BY ITS CHAIRMAN
                            APPELLATE AUTHORITY, P.B.NO.19953
                            REGD. OFFICE, YOGAKSHEMA
                            JEEVAN BIMA MARG
                            MUMBAI - 400 021

                       2.   THE ZONAL MANAGER
                            APPELLATE AUTHORITY - I
                            THE LIFE INSURANCE
                            CORPORATION OF INDIA
                            ZONAL OFFICE
                            SOUTH CENTRAL ZONAL OFFICE
                            SAIFABAD
Digitally signed by         HYDERABAD - 600 063
VASANTHAKUMARY
BK
Location: High Court   3.   THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER
of Karnataka
                            THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY
                            LIC OF INDIA, DIVISIONAL OFFICE
                            SHIVAMOGGA - 577 205
                                                                    ...APPELLANTS

                       (BY SRI RAJESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
                              -2-
                                      NC: 2024:KHC:43028-DB
                                        WA No. 439 of 2023




AND:

1.   SRI R LOKANATHA
     S/O LATE B. RAJU
     AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
     HGA(P)SR NO.640037
     IT DEPT. LIC OF INDIA
     DIVISIONAL OFFICE
     SHIVAMOGGA - 577 204
     R/O HIG-43
     KALLAHALLI II STAGE
     VINOBA NAGAR
     SHIVAMOGGA - 577 204

2.   UNION OF INDIA
     BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
     MINISTRY OF FINANCE
     NEW DELHI - 110 001
                                           ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R LOKANATHA, R-1-IN-PERSON;
 SRI B. PRAMOD, CGC FOR R-2)


       THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET

ASIDE    THE   ORDER     DATED     22.02.2023   PASSED   IN

W.P.NO.15264/2022 BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND

CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION.


       THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDES, THIS DAY,

JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
                                   -3-
                                             NC: 2024:KHC:43028-DB
                                                WA No. 439 of 2023




CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
       N. V. ANJARIA
       and
       HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND


                         ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)

Heard learned advocate for the appellants, learned party-in-

person-respondent No.1 and learned Central Government Counsel

Mr. B. Pramod for respondent No.2.

2. The challenge in this writ appeal filed under Section 4 of the

Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, is directed against the judgment

and order of learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.15264 of

2022.

2.1 The petition of respondent No.1-original petitioner came to

be allowed in part and the order of dismissal dated 24.11.2012

passed against him was set aside. The employer was permitted to

initiate de novo inquiry against the petitioner in respect of the

charges of unauthorised absence. While giving the liberty for

initiating de novo inquiry, it was directed by learned Single Judge to

reinstate the petitioner forthwith to the post which he held.

NC: 2024:KHC:43028-DB

2.2 It was further observed and directed by learned Single Judge

that the claim of the petitioner for benefits for the period from

24.11.2012 till the date of his reinstatement is left open to be

decided in accordance with law subject to the outcome of the fresh

inquiry which may be conducted.

3. Noticing the facts in the background, the petitioner was in

employment as Programmer Grade-2 with the Life Insurance

Corporation of India-the appellants herein. It appears that pursuant

to the First Information Report in Crime No.121 of 2011 registered

against the petitioner for the offences under the provisions of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under the provisions of the Prize

Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, the

petitioner came to be suspended on the ground that he was taken

in police custody. The suspension was revoked on 22.02.2012.

3.1 It appears that subsequently, the employer imposed penalty

of dismissal from service under Regulation 39(1)(f) of the Life

Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. It appears

that in the inquiry proceedings which culminated into the order of

penalty of dismissal dated 24.11.2012, the petitioner had no

effective participation.

NC: 2024:KHC:43028-DB

3.2 It appears and was observed by learned Single Judge that

the employer referred to the e-mail of the petitioner dated

07.08.2012 in which the petitioner threatened to boycott the inquiry.

On the basis of such e-mail, it was concluded that the petitioner

was not willing to participate in the inquiry. It further appears that

at the start of the inquiry proceedings, a civil suit was instituted by

the petitioner for declaration that the inquiry proceedings was illegal

and invalid on the ground of non-payment of subsistence

allowance. The suit was dismissed on the ground of maintainability.

Be that as it may.

3.3 The petitioner challenged the order of dismissal dated

24.11.2012 by filing the writ petition. Also called in question was

the suspension and further complained about non-payment of

subsistence allowance. Learned Single Judge recorded in

paragraph 6 of the order that the employer stopped the subsistence

allowance on the ground that the petitioner had not reported to duty

from 27.02.2012, though suspension was revoked.

4. The total controversy, as could be seen from the facts,

booked two aspects. Firstly, the challenge was lodged to the

dismissal order dated 24.11.2012 passed pursuant to the inquiry.

NC: 2024:KHC:43028-DB

The attendant dispute was whether the petitioner had effective

participation in the inquiry proceedings or not. The second aspect

is about non-payment of subsistence allowance during and after

the period of suspension as well as during the pendency of the

inquiry. In this regard, rival contentions were advanced.

4.1 It could be noticed from the order of learned Single Judge

that it was the submission of the petitioner himself that the petition

could be disposed of by quashing the dismissal order giving liberty

to the respondents to hold de novo inquiry on the charges, which

were two in numbers, with appropriate directions.

4.2 What was recorded by learned Single Judge in paragraph 16

of the order reads thus,

"16. The petitioner at this stage submits that the petition could be disposed of quashing the dismissal order [Annexure-B] with liberty to the respondents to hold de novo enquiry on the aforesaid two charges with appropriate directions for reinstatement forthwith and with leave to the petitioner to seek all consequential benefits subject to the outcome of such enquiry."

NC: 2024:KHC:43028-DB

4.3 As against this, the stand of the employer in the above

regard was reflected in the following observations of learned Single

Judge found in paragraph 15,

"15. When queried, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that if dismissal order is interfered, in the circumstances of the case the petitioner will be entitled to reinstatement but because a strong case is made out for de novo enquiry on the petitioner's association with M/s. Metro Marketing Network Company and unauthorized absence, the petitioner's entitlement from the date of his unauthorized absence to the date of his reinstatement will have to be made subject to further enquiry that will have to be held."

4.4 In light of the above conspectus and the controversy as well

as the concessionary submissions made by both the sides, learned

Single Judge disposed of the petition by permitting the employer to

initiate de novo inquiry in respect of the charges and further

directed to reinstate the petitioner without any monetary or

consequential benefits which were made to be subject to the

outcome of the fresh inquiry which may be initiated.

5. Two defects in law could be immediately noticed in the

operative part of the judgment and order of learned Single Judge.

NC: 2024:KHC:43028-DB

Firstly, while permitting the employer to conduct de novo inquiry

against respondent No.1-original petitioner, no time limit was fixed

which ought to have been done by learned Single Judge. Secondly,

as far as the reinstatement part is concerned, in view of the

decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chairman, Life

Insurance Corporation of India and others Vs. A. Masilamani

[(2013)6 SCC 530], learned Single Judge was not right in directing

reinstatement of respondent No.1 while permitting fresh inquiry.

5.1 In the aforesaid decision in Masilamani (supra), the Hon'ble

Supreme Court observed thus,

"It is a settled legal proposition, that once the court sets aside an order of punishment, on the ground that the enquiry was not properly conducted, the court cannot reinstate the employee. It must remit the case concerned to the disciplinary authority for it to conduct the enquiry from the point that it stood vitiated, and conclude the same." (para 16)

6. In view of the above position, the appeal deserves to be

allowed in part with the following directions,

NC: 2024:KHC:43028-DB

(i) The part of the order of learned Single Judge in

so far as directing for reinstatement of the

petitioner-respondent No.1 is set aside.

(ii) The appellants-employer shall not be obliged

to reinstate respondent No.1 during the pendency

of de novo inquiry which may be conducted by the

employer.

(iii) The inquiry which may be proposed by the

appellants-employer shall be completed within a