HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19945 of 1999 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorary, to call for the records relating to the show cause notice, dated 24th of August 1999, and to quash the entire disciplinary proceedings initiated against him pursuant to the charge sheet, dated 11th February 1991. 2. The petitioner herein was originally appointed as a member of sub-staff in the year 1983 in the Life Insurance Corporation in its branch at Jagityal of Hyderabad Division. Subsequently, he was promoted as a Record Assistant and further promoted to the post of Assistant on 3rd of May 1989. 3. When he was working as Assistant, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him under Regulation 39 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960, framed under the Life Insurance Corporation Act. The disciplinary authority has issued charge sheet, dated 11th February 1991 against the petitioner, and the charges framed against him read as under : “1. That you have unauthorisedly taken delivery of the following loan/surrender value payment cheques without any authority from the policy holders concerned. The applications for these loans/surrender value payments were submitted with the forged signature/thumb impression of the policy holders without their knowledge and consent. The policies were in lapsed condition without acquiring any value. The premium position was tampered with in such a way to show that the policies became eligible for loan/surrender value and accordingly loan/surrender value payments were made. Further you with a malafide intention destroyed the policy file and loan ledger sheet in respect of policy numbers appearing at Serial No.2 and 3. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- S.No. Policy No. Name of Amount of Cheque No. Policy holder Loan/SV & Date ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- 1. 45896039 B.Rajamallu Rs.3600/- 267699, dt.25.4.90 2. 60597960 E.Rajaiah Rs.7200/- 268230, dt.18.5.90 3. 60936082 T.Raji Reddy Rs.3380/- 268320, dt.30.5.90 4. 60598276 N.Bheemaiah Rs.3903.90 268055, dt.06.4.90 5. 60599237 P.S.Chander Rs.5111.30 267297, dt.24.3.90 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - 2. That you have fraudulently encashed cheque mentioned at S.No.1 through Bank Account of Shri Chakradhar Rao, Agent, Ramagundam Branch Office and the cheques mentioned under S.No.2 to 5 were encashed through Bank Account of Shri P.Ashok, Agent of Ramagundam Branch Office. These two Agents are maintaining their Bank Accounts with Andhra Bank at Ramagundam. You received the proceeds of these cheques from these two Agents. Thus you have misappropriated the funds belonging to the Corporation and derived illegally undue pecuniary benefit from these transactions.” 4. On initiation of disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner was kept under suspension on 11.07.1990. In response to the above charge sheet, the petitioner has filed his explanation on 25.03.1991, and as the same was not satisfactory, further inquiry was ordered by the disciplinary authority, by appointing an inquiry officer on 16.04.1991, and the inquiry proceedings were commenced on 07.06.1991. The inquiry officer has concluded the inquiry by 24.11.1992. Thereafter, the inquiry officer has directed the Presenting Officer to submit his written brief on behalf of respondents. The written brief was submitted by the Presenting Officer on 30th March 1994, and a copy of the same was furnished to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner has also submitted his written brief on 4th August 1994. On conclusion of inquiry, the inquiry officer has submitted his report on 03.12.1994 to the disciplinary authority. Basing on the findings recorded by the inquiry officer, the disciplinary authority has issued a show cause notice, dated 15.12.1995. The petitioner has filed his explanation to the said show cause notice on 3rd of January 1996. However, no further proceedings were taken up thereafter. Later, the show cause notice, dated 24th August 1999 was issued, directing the petitioner to show cause as to why the penalty of removal from service be imposed on him, besides recovering the financial loss of Rs.23,195.20 ps., caused to the Corporation. At that stage, this writ petition is filed, questioning the said show cause notice and to quash the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, on the ground that there is abnormal delay on the part of respondents in taking further steps, on conclusion of inquiry. 5. Heard learned counsel for petitioner Sri M. Sudhir Kumar, and Sri D.V.Sitharam Murthy, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. The impugned proceedings are questioned at the stage of show cause notice, mainly on the ground that having issued earlier show cause notice, dated 15.12.1995, for which, the petitioner has already filed his explanation, there is no reason or justification on the part of respondents in not passing any final orders for a period of about more than three years, and also in issuing further show cause notice, dated 24th August 1999. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that in view of the unexplained delay on the part of respondents in concluding the disciplinary proceedings, the very proceedings are liable to be quashed. 7. On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri D.V.Sitharam Murthy, appearing for the respondents that in this case, after issuance of earlier show cause notice, in view of criticism raised by the petitioner against the disciplinary authority, he did not move in the matter and there was some delay in taking further steps after the new incumbent has taken charge. It is submitted by the learned counsel that in view of the gravity of charges levelled against the petitioner, it is not a case to quash the proceedings at this stage. 8. A perusal of the charge sheet, dated 11.02.1991, shows that the two charges framed against the petitioner are serious in nature, involving misappropriation of revenue of the respondent/Corporation. Under Charge No.1, it is alleged that the petitioner has taken delivery of the surrender value payment cheques on certain policies without any authority from the policy holders concerned. It is the case of respondents that certain policies about 5 in number, were in lapsed condition without acquiring any value, but the premium position was tampered in such a way to show that the said policies became eligible for loan/surrender value, and accordingly, payments were made, and the petitioner was also charged with destroying the policy file and the loan ledger sheet in respect of such five number of policies. Vide Charge No.2, it is alleged that the petitioner had fraudulently encashed through some other agents, all the cheques, which were issued on the policies covered by Charge No.1. 9. In this case, after recording the entire evidence, the Presenting Officer was asked to submit the written brief, and after submitting the same, a copy was also furnished to the petitioner, and thereafter, the petitioner has also submitted his written brief on 30.03.1994. Later, the inquiry report was submitted on 03.12.1994, and the show cause notice was issued on 15.12.1995. It is the case of petitioner that he has filed his explanation to the show cause notice, dated 15.12.1995, on 3rd of January 1996, but inspite of the same, no further steps have been taken, and after delaying the matter for about three long years, further show cause notice, dated 24.08.1999, was issued. But, in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents, with reference to delay from the date of issuing show cause notice, dated 15.12.1995 onwards, it is stated that as the petitioner has raised some criticism against the disciplinary authority, he did not proceed in the matter, and the officer concerned was retired from service in the month of September 1997. Thereafter, it took some time for the new incumbent to look into the large volume of papers relating to the disciplinary proceedings, and therefore, there was some delay in issuing the show cause notice, dated 24th August 1999. 10. In support of his argument, the learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Radhakishan[1], and sought for quashing the disciplinary proceedings in view of abnormal delay in finalizing the same. But, in the aforesaid judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe, “In considering whether the delay has vitiated the disciplinary proceedings, the Court has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay has occurred”. In view of the aforesaid observation made by the Apex Court, mere delay in finalizing the disciplinary proceedings, by itself, in all cases, is no reason to quash such proceedings. In this case, it is to be seen that the charges levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. On conclusion of inquiry, in view of submission of explanation by the petitioner to the 1st show cause notice on 03.01.1996, the disciplinary authority ought to have passed the final orders. But, unfortunately, on the ground that the authority was criticized by the petitioner, the concerned officer has not taken further steps till his retirement in the month of September 1997. Though this Court records its displeasure over the delay caused on account of such an allegation by the charged officer, but at the same time, looking at the seriousness of the charges, and as it is stated that the new incumbent has taken some time in view of the large volume of file relating to the disciplinary proceedings, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage. If the petitioner is having any valid objections, it is for him to raise such objections by way of an explanation to the 2nd show cause notice, dated 24th August 1999. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this writ petition to set aside the impugned show cause notice and quash the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner. However, as it is stated that the petitioner has not submitted his explanation to the impugned show cause notice, he is permitted to file his explanation, if any, within a period of six weeks from today, and on filing of such explanation, it is open for the respondent-disciplinary authority to pass appropriate final orders in accordance with law. 11. Subject to above directions, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J March 2009. ajr [1] 1998 (4) SCC 154