ISS .aalit8Ki !!-8;!;!s>;(-3?!-'3'(-i;,1: iii^»ca^M': :SKK^.,s^NIS- iUBBjli ^i.-fW.H;! |j@^^KN^^^; iWiSESiB'L'? I^Kf^SiWM' lfiais»s i-!w V-SWS'fs-^i ig"@@^;; S&SSK l!EetigliK!E5>i:E®^ £&.>• ^tS)BS?ir-t^ ?i"f'i-J**tg"B'i1 ;:sSIHSSii :'ff!gSS!"S- :.tl):,0),;^;,{0a :,I-(.!-";.1-1^13': ^.l-i.^S'iiB' ;ffi.^ii% ;!:d^t—R^i^(-^' •f-iSiiBsll •»^®%i .i"'))^(&^'£ !M£-::fi1' ''w'saf^ss: WS s:iSs^ 'Sfs-'S-Sat: 'ste"s»?; ®B;S® ..l.tligl^, s.s^;®.-..; -•sffQsl-ll-: ,[y: ;lifl'b-l;l?.»l.;.:: €>!Sit"";>: ^w ^; &1-'- ~;^; g; .^.iSM'^ ^-<,!"<i^^i; ^iiR' ;».-.:"@'^- (&^ .*.Y'" .:;••'.'.^:./.':. '.^:^exy •> m^m »^S'f-1': ;gS;j:(;g;,i^, •SfwefW ^>^i'p:.:: m ^ ^^il; K>:! ^l-]i-j .-A;'t"^.'ch:-©1^ ••.1-':W:3 :-~® .' 7Q; •:i -eyw- -^K' ..?>-;<Si; ••••wS-!'^ i-^.s^^ 't 'l-i cn •Ri M ISf^sif^SfSKS^WSS'SS: fflif^rL%^^El^^^^;ta^;^rfS^CSKSC^1W?^iDWt Ssta^taas:. :»s««y^ 'l-I^R>.'|-'-s<B»tIjM;. :lt».t$'}-<t'<li'S»^ts!.: •>-3wi®"<l)?^i-ii>'<1' .S!UW''K;.h-';m^^i-a •i-i:,t-"h-i;'e>'<:.;!-'•. •C¥t-'':S3..'BJ,a^!g' •l-9—v»'pgg^(B:i w^^'^----s^ :SII!a%8:^!?- •f^:f-'»^y::^'t'^?kj*;."' ®.<!®.1...»^, !3' %S'*lstl:ff: it&®;^!-g:'kiilog. ;wi-J«z3^M'i»':!ig> •^yFVf-i'^'tk: :ISBia@S'C3(:i|a-::;::,;' 'N:t.i;i»j'.<i>'i!a;i:::S!11. ^"'ssasis^w^'s'- .fsSsjjg^ff.i-Si^ :^ffiSS'?B'«iE>j; .•£,':i-l":;<5>':^^%"':"'<"l" ^&SiK^.S^sS. ^.^is^'/Wen: 'f-fi-tWf^WW SSSjSBSSWBBs •^W^fW^^K'S^^""^ °: 31II Si ISi yws ;';.!!s!)a s&saiMaSfiS h»i .>~,^ ^t^ Xyf !i TilIGH COURT QFJUDlGJ^TURE AT BIL1USPUR (C.G1 Mlsc. Petition No.4808 of 1993 D. K. Tiwari Vs. Life Insuran.ee Corporation oflndia & ofhers ORDER Post&r 16.02.2005 Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge i.i HICTI COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G1 Misc. Petition No.4808 of 1993 D. K. Tiwari Vs. Life Insurance Corporation oflndia and others Appearance: Shri Sudhir Verma, couiisel for the Petitioner. Shri Midsesh Sharma, wifh Shri Avinash Kumar Mishra, Counsel for fhe respondents. SnnU Kumar Sinha, J, ORDER (16.2.2005) The petitioner has ffled this writ petition for quashing fhe order dated 21.7.1978 (Annexure-D) passed by Respondent No.3, the Discipliiiaiy Authority (The Divisional Maaager) as also the order dated 25.1.1979 {Annexure-Gl passcd by fhe appellate authority, respondent no.2 fThe Zoiial Man^er) uxider the provisions ofLife Insuraace Corporation oflndia (StafiE) Regulations 1960. (2) The facts of the case arc that fhe petitioner was appointed as a Development officer ia fhe Life Iiisiu-ance Corporation of India (heremaflter referred to as the '"Corporation") sometime ia fhe year 1964. For fhe said post he had filled up the Applicatioa Form dated 31.3.1964 in which he had declared his academic -&- quaUfication as "Matric passed and appeared in. iatermediate (resiilt not out so far)". He has shown his date of birth as 06.05.1938. (3) On 1'2& July 1977, fhe petitioner was served with a charge sheet by the discipUnaiy aufhority in. which it was specified fhat fhe Corporation has rcquired the deposit of origiaal Matriculation Certificate fboin the petitioner which he could not deposit upto 28.3.1970 aad for tliis reason a meuio was issued to Tiim on the saM date. Vanous subsequent remiaders were also issued to 1iim aad tune was granted at the request of the petitioner upto 31.7.1976, but tbe petitioner failed to deposit fhe certificate. On 18.1.1977 he was agaia directed to submit the Matriculation certificate within 10 days finin the receipt of fhe abovc letter, but heagaia failed to deposit fhe same. However, a letter was sent by the petitioner for grautuig tiine upto 30.04.1977 which was graated by an official comiD.unication dated 17.2.1977 even then fhe order was not compUed and in the said manner, fhe petitioner failed to coniply and obey the orders aud directions given to hiDi ia course of his of&cial du1y by the competent aufhiority. The charge- sheet furttier speci&es tbat by fhe aforesaid acts, fhe petitioner failed to obey aad coinply wifh the official iastructions given to him aud has acted ia nianiier prejudicial to the good conduct and detrunental to the interest of tbe Corporation and has failed to ?' <"--' --S - inaintaiTi absolute in.tegrily thereby violattng the provisions of regulations, 21, 24 aad 39(1) offhe aforesaidRegulations of 1960 aad was Uable for one or niore ofthe penalties as specified uiider Regulation 39(l)(a) tp (o) of fhe said Regulations. A copy of the chai^e sheet has been placed on record as Annexure R-l. (4) The petitioner ffled his reply dated 25.7.1977 to the aforesaid char^e sheet. He deiiied the allegations fhereof. The petitioner subinitted that he had appeared in the Intermediate examiaation of M.P.Board of Secondaiy Education for the year 1963 aad has attached his original Matriculation Certificate with fhe form. of the said examination. Hc further subinitted that the origtnal inarks sheet of the Intermediate Examiaation and also fhe Certificate of Board of Class-VIII have been subinitted in the office regardiug the proof of age. He also subinitted fhat bis age stands admitted by fhe Corporation as 06.5.1938 in his first FtoUcy No.S/8946676 on fhe basis of ofl5.ee records offhe Co-operative Baak, Bilaspur where he was serving at fhat time. He also subniitted fhat he had appUed iiiaay tmies to fhe Board of Secondaiy Education for retuming the origiaal High School (Matriculation) Certificate, whicb have not been responded to, and for fhis reason oiily he could not produce fhe sanie before the Corporation on its deinaud and had always prayed for time to niake necessary efforts. Placing aU these facts, the petitioner prayed for wiihdrawal of the char^e sheet dated ~Li 12.7.1977 issued to him, A copy of the reply dated 25.7.1977 has been placed on record as Amiexure R-2. (5) It appears &om fhe order Annexure-D that one Shri S.K.Vasudeva, ADM (NB) Divisional Office, Raipiir, was appointed as Enquiiy OfiBcerwho after conductmg the enquiry subuiitted his report dated 14.4.1978, accoriiag to which the chai^es in relation to faiture to obey aad abide by fhe iastructions issued to thc petitioner fiom. time to tixne ia the inatter of submission of Matriculation certificate were held to be provide. IncMentaUy, it was also held fhat fhe behaviour of the petitioner can be considered to be violative ia the sense that he did not mamtaia absolute iategrity ia dealmg witti fhe employer. The Disciplinaiy Aufhority concurred with the fuidiags of the Enquity Of&cer and issued a show cause notice dated 22.5.19^8 to the petitioner proposiag fhe penalty of removal from service of the Corporation under Regulation 39(l)(fl. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 10.07.1978. However, the disciplmaiy aufhority holdiag it to be unsatisfactoiy and unconviacmg agamst the proposed penalty passed fhe order dated 21.7,1978 (Arwexwe-D), but inspite of haposing penalty of reinoval fiom. service, he imposed penalty of lowering down pennanently the basic pay by two st^es in. the tune scale under regulation 39(1)(d). -<,"' (6) Agaiast the aforesaid order passed by fhe discipUnaiy authority fhe petitioner ffled au appeal beforc ftie appeUate authority. A copy of memo of appeal has been filed as Annexure-F. The appeUate authority passed the impugued order Armjexure-G on 25.01.1979 dismissiug the appeal offhe petitioner and cQnfirmiug the punishinent order passed by fhe disciplmaiy authority. It is after this, the petitioner has ffled this petition chaUengmg fhe legaUty, validity aud propriety of fhe aforesaid orders and has prayed for quashinent offhe same wifh atl consequeiitial benefits ia . form ofarrears (dtfference) ofpay etc., etc. (7) Alongwith the petition, the petitioner filed a photocopy ofthe Matnculation Standard Examination Certificate 1962 which shows fhat fhe petitioner has passed fhe said examiuation in. second division Qxmi A.I.V.S. Examinations, AI^arh. The docuiuent is Amiexure A. Armexure -C is the gist of Warshjk Prativedaa of Jabalpur University which shows the niention of AU India Vidvat Sauunelan (A.I.V.S.), Aligarh, which accoidiag to fhe avenaents ui the petition has been recognized by this Urdversity. (8) The inain contentiou of the petitioner is ftiat siace his or^iaal certifieate was deposited with fhe Board of Secondary Education for appearing ia Interoiediate Examiaation, fherefore, he could not produce fhe satae eifher at fhe tune of his appointment or at aay subsequeut st^;e. However, he had \ -i' produced ttie correspondence fi-oin fhe Board aad had also shown fhat he had inade aU efForts wifh the office ofthe Board to obtaia fhe original certificate, but the same could not be obtained aad for fhis reason alone, after takiag niaay tunes fi'oin the Corporation, he coiild not produce the origmal certtficate^which camiot be said to be a inisconduct or aay act prejudicial to the good conduct aad detrfmental to the interest of fhe Corporation. It is also submitted tiiat there is no violation of auy of the provisions of the Regulations as inentioned under Regulations 21,24 aad 39, fherefoiie, the order of punislmient is bad ia law. The petitioner further submits that iu fact on 09.12.1992 he was offered to appear iu fhe iuterview for proinotion to fhe cadre ofA.B.M (Sales) aad he has appeared ia the said iaterview. A copy of the inark sheet of Board of Secondaiy Education, M.P., Bhopal, relating to the Intennediate (Art) Examination 196'3 bas also been filed by fh.e petitioner subsequently. (9) The respondents have also filed fheir retum aad have denied fhe contentions of the petitioner. It is stated by fhein fhat after conducting the departinental enquuy for the char^es leveled agamst fhe petitioner, the petitioner has been r^htly held guilty for fhe sam.e aud an appropriate puiushiuent has been awarded to him. The enquuy officer, Disciplinary Authority as weU as appeUate aufhorily have acted in accordauce with law aud the -I- punishuient order as well as the appeUate order do not warrant uiterference in writ jurisdiction by this Court. V (10) Leamed counsel for the petitioner subinits fhat in fact, fhe charges leveled ^auist the petitioner have iiot been proved arid the enquiry of&cer as weU as the discipluiaiy authority and the appeUate aufhority erred iu law by holding the aforesaid charge^ proved aad established agam.st the petitioner. In fact, fhe petitioner caniiot be held Uable for penalty under regulations 21, 24 or39(1) ofthe aforesaid Regulations 1960. (11) I have gone thi'ough the records of the case and have perused the enquuy report also. First of aU, it is to be considered as to what is the scope of iuterference ia such inatters. In a decision reported m AER 1989 S.C. 1185 <Unlon of InOiti. cumellant -Vs- Pamui JWnndd, responden^ in which the niatter came through the Triburtal, fhe Apex Court held fhat the jurisdiction of the tribuual to uiterfere wifh fhe disciplmaiy matters or fhe punishinent caruiot be equated with aa appeUate jurisdiction. The tribuiial caaiiot iuterfere wifh the fiiidings ofthe enquiry of5cer or fhe coinpetent authority where they are not arbitraiy or utterly perverse. >-1 -s' (12) The sauie view was also taken by the apex Court ia fhe matter of Bhfwect Rani, AppelUtnt -Vs- Stccte of Hinususheil Prudesh and ofhers, Jiespondents rcoorted 1n ASt 1983 S.C. PS.4S4. It has been held fhat iii a petition under article 226, the High Court does not fiuiction as a court of appeal over the fiadiags of fhe disciplmaiy authority, but where ttie findiug is utterly perverse, fhfe Court caa always interfere with ttie saiue. The reference niay also be inade to fhe decision quoted ia para 10 of fhe aforesaid judgment i.e., AIR 1964 S.C. 364 fUnlon ofJntHa, AifpeUeint -Vs- B.C.Goel, Jtesoondenfl , the relevant pordon of which are reproduced as under as has been reproduced ia para 10 of. ; Bhagat Ram's case. 'It still remains to be considered whether the respondent is noi right when he oontends thaf in the drcuTnstances of this case, the conditsion of the Govemment is based on no evidence whatever. It is a conchisipn which is perverse and, iherefore, suffers from. such an obviovs and patent error on the face of the record that the High Caurt wculd be justified in quashing it. In deaHng wrth writ petitions filed by the public servants who have been dismissed, or otherwise deaft with so as to attract Artide 311(2), the High Court under Artide 226 has jurisdiction to enquire whether the condusion of ihe Goverrunent on which the impugned order of dfemi'ssa? reste is no( supported by any evidence at att. It is true that the order of dismissa} whidi may be passed agcanst a Goverranent serv.ant found guitty of misconduct, oan be described as an adnunistrative order; nevertheless, the prooeedings held agmnsi such public servant under ihe statutory rules to determine whether he )'s guilty of the charge frcaned agcdnsi him are in the nature of quasi-judidal proceedings and there can be little doubt thal a writ of oertiorctri, for -9- instance, can be daimed by a public servcwd if he i's able to satisfy the High Court that the ultimate conduswn of the Govt. in the said proceedmgs, which is the basis ofhis disntissal is based on no evidence. ° (13) While dealing wifh the matter reported iu (1996) 5 SCC 474 fState of T.S. -7s- Thiru K.V.Peru.mal and others) where the luatter came through fhe Administrative Tnbuiial, fhe Apex Court held that it is not the proviace of the ta-ibuxial to go iato the truth or otherwise of the charges as the tribunal is not an appeUate authority over the departm.ental authorities. It has also been held that fhe tribunal naust be held to have exceeded its jurisdiction ia entermg upon a discussion whether fhe charges are estabUshed on the material available. (14) On fhe basis of fhe aforesaid references, it einei^es fhat normaUy this Court cannot uiterfere with the decision of fhe enquiry ofiScer or fhe disciplinaiy authority or the appellate authonty ualess the decision is based upon no evidence on record or the same is utterly perverse or is reached iu violation of fiiadamental priaciples ofnaturaljustice. (15) Applyiag fhese principles in case ia hand if fhe report of enquiry ofiEicer is perused, it transpires fhat the enquiiy ofScer after receiviag fhe reply gave an adequate opporttmity ofhearing to the petitioner and after recordiug the statements of the Preseiiting -|6- Of&cer aad the petitioner and after taktng a declaration fhat no ofher witness is required to be examiued, closed the proceediags aad after due analysis of inaterial placed before Inm arrived at the conclusion referred to above. In fhis inaiuier, fluidam.ental pruiciples of natural justice as weU as fhe provisions of regulatiort 39(2) have been fiiUy complied with ia this case. (16) The reference may also be made to fhe provisions of regulations 21 and 24. Regulation 21 says fhat the eiuployee shaU aU times niaiataui absolute iategrity aud devotion to duty aad shaU confonn to aud abide by these regulations aad shaU observe, coinply with aad obey all fhe orders aad directions which niay, ffova. time to time, be given to him in the course of his official duties by auy person or persons under whose jurisdiction, supermtendence or control, the einployee may, for the time beiag be placed. Regulation 24 deals with fhe provision that eveiy employee shall serve fhe Coiporation honestly aud faifhfiiUy aad shaU use the utmost endeavours to proiaote the iaterest of the Corporation aad shaU show courtesy and attention in aU trausactions. Regulation 39(1) deals with the provisions for imposing punishinent aad it is stated fhat fhe peiialties specified vide Coluuin (a) to (g) caa be imposed on aa eiuployee who conunits a breach pf regulations or who displays the negl^ence, itiefBciency or indolence or kaowiugly does aayfhing detriinental to -11- fhe iuterest of fhe Corporation, or coitflicting with the uistructions or who conunits a breach of discipline or is giulty of aay ofher act prejudicial to good conduct. (17) It is veiy ckar fi-om bare perusal of these 3 provisions fhat the specified penalties (any one or niore) cau be imposed by the discipliuary authority for good and suEBcient reasons for even a breach of regulations of Corporation. If the faimess of fhe enquiry is not chaUenged and any aAitrariness is not established and fhe fiiiding of fhe enquiry ofGcer is based upon soiae evidence on record which goes to show that ia fact, the petitioner did not obey the orders or iastructions issued by his higher authorities then iu all faimess it can be said that the petitioner was Uable for penally for breach of regulation 21. I have exaxniued the findiag of fhe enquiry ofGcer. The findiag has beeu arrived at after coinplete aaalysis. It has conie on record fhat the petitioner was called upon by fhe Corpoiation to deposit his Matriculation Certificate r^ht fi-oni the veiy beguuung aad several orders/uistructtons were issued to him iu ttiis regard. The petjtioner did not obey fhe orders issued by the Corporation aad he did not coinply wifh fhe instructions issued to bim. In fact,the petitioner ignored fhe instructions for so inauy times and after a very long period he came wifh a prayer for giviag him some iiiore tune to produce fhe certificate. Even fhen he did not produce fhe certificate in thne frst. • •.•&5r;i"i?sg -';''s-.: '1\ ^, •CL prayed by him and ultunately failed to produce fhe samc tiU last. In fhe said situation Qnly, the enquuy ofiBcer has recorded a findiug fhat fhe conduct ofthe petitioner was notbona-fide and he has disobeyed the orders oflushj^heraufhoritiesasiffheorigmal was iiot traceable Iroin the Board, he cpuld easity have obtained a duplicate copy and have produeed the same to the authorities. (18) In ttris laaiuier, it is apparent fhat the present is not a case where fhe findnig is utterly peiverse or fhe same is based oh no evidence on record or the same has beeD. arrived at arbitranly or has been recorded in violatioa. offundaiBental praiciples pfnatural justice. : . . . : , ' : ; : . 11 'J' (19) In the opiaiou-offhis Cotirt,;there is coinplete violation of regulation 21 and fhe petitKJmer has riglitly beea punisfaed: foir fhe same ia. acconlaaee with law. The iHituatuneat OFderas weUa^ fhe appeUate order does not^ iBqujre dny iuterference under 226/227 offhe ConstituliEm ofliid|a. and fhe same is disBtissed^ HRweveS, Sunil Kumar Sinha 'ffie^petitipiL Kas iro icle rilerit $hiere sliall^be no;ciTder, ds to