Disposed

Manish Verma v. Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India Central Office, Mumbai, and 4 Others

Allahabad HC7 Jan 2019WRIA/27957/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging disciplinary enquiry proceedings and the issuance of a show-cause notice. The court directed the petitioner to file a reply within 15 days and reserved liberty to challenge the reports. The Disciplinary Authority was directed to pass a reasoned order within three months. No rule of law was settled.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner directed to submit reply to show-cause notice within 15 days with liberty to challenge reports; Disciplinary Authority to pass reasoned order within three months.

Manish Verma Vs Chairman, Life Insurance… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 40

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 27957 of 2018 Petitioner :- Manish Verma Respondent :- Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation Of India Central Office, Mumbai, And 4 Others

¶3

Counsel for Petitioner :- Neeraj Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- Manish Goyal

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Manish Goyal, learned counsel on behalf of the L.I.C. of India.

¶6

The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 18.06.2018 by which further enquiry proceedings and report have accepted by the respondents and also a show-cause notice dated 14.11.2018 issued by the respondent no. 3 with regard to major penalty.

¶7

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have arbitrarily rejected the case of the petitioner for reexamination of three witnesses and to provide relevant documents to him. They have accepted further enquiry report submitted thereafter by the Enquiry Officer and have issued show-cause notice to the petitioner.

¶8

It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Enquiry Officer considered the previous enquiry statement of the witnesses which statements were taken in the absence of the petitioner and, therefore, further enquiry was ordered. Even in further enquiry that was held, the procedure adopted was arbitrary.

¶9

Shri Manish Goyal, on the other hand submits that the procedure adopted for conducting the disciplinary enquiry was in accordance with law. In any case the petitioner has already been issued a show-cause notice, he may submit a detailed reply taking those objections as have been taken in this writ petition and the competent authority shall look into the matter and pass appropriate orders

¶10

thereon.

¶11

This writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to submit his reply to the showcause notice issued to him within 15 days and take all such grounds as are legally tenable with liberty to challenge the initial enquiry report and further enquiry report and the competent authority who has issued the show-cause notice i.e. the Disciplinary Authority shall consider the reply of the petitioner and pass a reasoned and speaking order thereon within a period of three months thereafter.

¶12

Order Date :- 7.1.2019 VR

Manish Verma v. Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India Central Office, Mumbai, and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Verma v. Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India Central Office, Mumbai, and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Rameshwari Yadav Vs the General Manger P.N.B. H.R.D.Division N.Delhi and4 Ors.

Prabal Pratap Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Sanjiv Kumar Vs Ghaziabad Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd.Thru Its Secy. and Ors.

Kapileshwar Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Mobeen Khatoon Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Subhash Chandra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others