IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINIARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2252 OF 2009 Rajiv Gopichand Chandankar ..... ..... ... Petitioner. V/s Life Insurance Corpn. Of India & Ors. ..... .....Respondents. Mr.P.M.Pradhan, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr.V.Y.Sanglikar, Adv. for the respondent No.1. CORAM: J.N.PATEL ACTING C.J. AND B.R.GAVAI, J. 18th January, 2010. PC: Heard. Affidavit filed by the respondent is tendered and the same is taken on record. 2. The petitioner who is working as Development Officer in branch No.938 of the Corporation has filed this petition impugning charge sheet served on him in the disciplinary proceedings which is purported to be held by respondent No.2 being the disciplinary authority. It is the contention of the petitioner that the charge sheet served on him is not proper and it is in violation of regulation 21 and 24 of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 which read as under : “21. Every employee of the Corporation shall at all times maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty, shall conform to and abide by these Regulations and shall observe, comply with and obey all orders and directions which may, from time to time, 1 begiven to him in the course of his official duties by any person or persons under whose jurisdiction, superintendence or control he may, for the time being be placed.” 24. Every employee shall serve the Corporation honestly and faithfully and shall use his utmost endeavours to promote the interest of the Corporation and shall show courtesy and attention in all transactions.” 3. It is submitted that the petitioner has not violated any of the regulations. From the charge sheet it is evident that the disciplinary proceedings are in the matter of selection of Shri Rajeev G. Chandankar, Development Officer, SR No.433087, Branch 938, MDO-II having behaved violently and slapped Shri Vijay Gajanan Kumbhare, Assistant Project Manager (Sales) on his right cheek while he was working and the incident took place in office premises during working hours in the presence of the staff members and prima facie it is covered under regulations 21 and 24 the same being detrimental to the discipline i the office of the respondent-Corporation. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Khem Chand V/s Union of India, 1958 (0) AIR SC 300. We do not find that there is any case made out by the petitioner for intervention of this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence writ petition is dismissed. (ACTING C.J.) (B.R. GAVAI, J.) 2