Partly allowed

Sri H R Bhagavan v. L I C of India

Karnataka HC22 Apr 2022WP/45111/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment involves a departmental servant of LIC challenging directions issued by the Disciplinary Authority while implementing an appellate order. The High Court quashed orders directing transfer and resignation from trusteeship, holding the authority acted beyond the scope of the appellate order.

What did the court decide?

Orders of Disciplinary Authority dated 21.11.2015 and 19.02.2016 quashed. Petitioner entitled to consequential service benefits.

Sri H R Bhagavan Vs L I C of India — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.58361 OF 2016 (S-RES)

¶7

C/W

¶8

WRIT PETITION No.45111 OF 2015 (S-RES)

¶9

IN WRIT PETITION No.58361 OF 2016

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI H.R.BHAGAVAN S/O LATE H.C.R IYENGAR, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, K.R.S ROAD, MYSURU – 570 020.

¶12

RESIDING AT:

¶13

NO.18, “HARI NIVASA”, 10^TH CROSS, BEHIND AMRITHANANDAMAYI SCHOOL, BOGADI, MYSURU – 570 026.

¶14

... PETITIONER

¶15

(BY SRI PARTHASARATHI M.S., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

L.I.C. OF INDIA

¶18

A BODY CONSTITUTED UNDER THE INSURANCE COMPANIES (ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKING) ACT, 1970, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,

¶19

¶20

CENTRAL OFFICE, JEEVAN BEEMA MARG, P.B. 19953. MUMBAI - 400 021.

¶21

THE ZONAL MANAGER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY SOUTH CENTRAL ZONAL OFFICE, JEEVAN BHAGYA, SAIFABAD, HYDERABAD – 63.

¶22

THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, L.I.C. OF INDIA, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MYSURU – 570 015.

¶23

... RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI TIMMANNA BHAT DEVATHE AND SMT. SALEEA T.BHAT, ADVOCATES)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD.19.2.2015 PASSED BY THE R-3 REMOVING THE PETITIONER FROM SERVICE, VIDE ANNEX-W; QUASH THE ORDER DTD.12.11.2015 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEX-Y AND ETC.,

¶26

IN WRIT PETITION No.45111 OF 2015

¶27

BETWEEN:

¶28

SRI H.R.BHAGAVAN S/O LATE. H.C.R. IYENGAR, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT: NO. 18, "HARI NIVASA" 10^TH CROSS, BEHIND AMRITHANANDAMYI SCHOOL, BOGADI, MYSURU – 570 026.

¶29

... PETITIONER

¶30

(BY SRI PARTHASARATHI M.S., ADVOCATE)

¶31

¶32

AND:

¶33

L.I.C. OF INDIA A BODY CONSTITUTED UNDER THE INSURANCE COMPANIES (ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKING) ACT, 1970, REPD. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, CENTRAL OFFICE, JEEVAN BEEMA MARG, P.B.NO.19953 MUMBAI – 400 021.

¶34

THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER L.I.C. OF INDIA, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MYSURU – 570 015.

¶35

THE BRANCH MANAGER L.I.C. OF INDIA, BRANCH - 1, K.R.S ROAD MYSURU – 570 020.

¶36

... RESPONDENTS

¶37

(BY SRI TIMMANNA BHAT DEVATHE, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 & R3 ARE SERVED)

¶38

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20.6.2015 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE – X AND ETC.,

¶39

¶40

THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 01.02.2022, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶41

ORDER

¶42

The petitioner is common in both these petitions, so are

¶43

the respondents and are therefore, taken up together and considered in the subject order.

¶44

Heard Sri.Parthasarathi.M.S., learned counsel for petitioner and Sri.Timmanna Bhat Devathe, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

¶45

Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petitions, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:

¶46

The petitioner joins the service of the 1^st respondent Life Insurance Corporation of India (‘LIC’ for short) on 31.08.1990 in terms of recruitment process initiated by the respondent and is posted to work at City Branch – 1, Mysuru city. The petitioner since the date of his entry into service with the LIC continued to work for 24 years at Mysuru city branch.

¶47

¶48

The petitioner claims that other members of his family

¶49

formed a charitable trust in the name and style of “Hosamane Alamelamma Ramaswamy Iyengar Trust” referred to as ‘Hari Trust’ on 17.01.2000 which is after the petitioner’s entry into service with the LIC. Being a member of the family, the petitioner also is made a member of the Trust. The petitioner, later, becomes the Secretary of the Trust. It is the claim of the petitioner that it was a social service and he used to attend to the activities of the Trust only on holidays without causing any hindrance for discharge of his duties as a Typist in the LIC. It is the further claim of the petitioner that the respondent – LIC was aware of the fact of the petitioner being the Secretary of the Trust and his services not being hindered by such activity of the petitioner.

¶50

On 22.03.2013, the petitioner submits a representation seeking to voluntarily retire from the services. Later, on 20.04.2013, he withdrew the said application for voluntary retirement on the score that it was submitted in undue haste,

¶51

¶52

after which, the petitioner did continue in service. On 10.08.2013 submits a representation with regard to short fall of his salary on account of the petitioner’s act of submission of voluntary retirement and its withdrawal. A second representation followed in the wake of no order being passed on the first.

¶53

On 28.08.2013, the Branch Manager of the LIC addresses a letter to the Divisional Office with regard to the grievance of the petitioner. This results in initiation of a departmental enquiry against the petitioner by issuance of a charge sheet on 01.03.2014 under the provisions of Regulations 39 of the LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. It is the claim of the petitioner that no communication was sent to the petitioner with regard to the outcome of the enquiry, but an amount of Rs.15,259/- was deducted from out of the salary of the petitioner for the month of April 2013. Since no order was passed to that effect, an application was given by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act seeking the specific order for

¶54

¶55

deduction of the salary as aforesaid. An endorsement was issued on 03.06.2014 that no office order was passed in this regard.

¶56

The petitioner later gave representations seeking the said amount of salary that was deducted for the month of April 2013. It was here he was made known on 15.12.2014 that during the notice period when he had submitted his application for voluntary retirement he would not be granted any salary and it was that deduction. Against the said communication dated 15.12.2014 wherein he was made know the reason for deduction from salary, he prefers an appeal on 17.01.2015 to the Senior Divisional Manager under the Right to Information Act. This results in an order removing the petitioner from service. An appeal is preferred to the Competent Authority against the said order of removal and also submits a representation seeking payment of interest on delayed payment of the withheld amount of salary for the month of April 2013. It is seeking a direction at the hands of this Court to the respondents to consider the

¶57

¶58

representation dated 20.06.2015 Writ Petition No.45111/2015 is

¶59

preferred.

¶60

During the pendency of W.P.45111/2015, the Appellate

¶61

Authority before whom the appeal was pending consideration, several orders are passed by the respondents. One dated 12.11.2015 by the Appellate Authority and the other dated 21.11.2015 by the Disciplinary Authority and the third dated 19.02.2016 again by the Disciplinary Authority. It is challenging these orders which were passed during the pendency of the earlier writ petition the subsequent writ petition in W.P.No.58361/2016 is preferred wherein the petitioner seeks the following prayer:

¶62

“PRAYER

¶63

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:-

¶64

a) Quash the Order Dtd.19.2.2015 passed by the 3^rd Respondent removing the Petitioner from service, vide ANNEXURE - W.

¶65

b) Quash the order dtd.12.11.2015 passed by the 2^nd Respondent – Appellate Authority vide ANNEXURE-Y.

¶66

¶67

c) Quash the order Dated 21.11.2015 passed by the 3^rd Respondent – Disciplinary Authority Bearing no. P&IR vide ANNEXURE-Z.

¶68

d) Quash the order dated 19.2.2016 passed by the 3^rd Respondent-Disciplinary Authority Bearing no P&IR vide ANNEXURE-AE.

¶69

e) Direct the Respondents to provide the petitioner all consequential benefits including continuity of service in pursuance of the above orders.

¶70

f) To pass such other suitable order or orders thereof as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶71

The facts pleaded in W.P.58361/2016 which are the aftermath of the earlier writ petition are as follows:

¶72

The facts narrated in the afore-narrated petition cover the

¶73

facts in the subject petition as well. The first writ petition in W.P.No.45111/2015 ends at a challenge being made to the order of the Disciplinary Authority imposing penalty of removal from service by his order dated 19.02.2015. The petitioner had preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority on 14.05.2015. This came to be allowed in part by the Appellate Authority by his order dated 12.11.2015 whereby the Appellate Authority

¶74

¶75

modifies the penalty of removal from service and imposes penalty of reduction by two stages in the time scale. The Disciplinary Authority while ordering reinstatement transfers the petitioner from Mysuru to Sakleshpur and also advises the petitioner to resign from the primary membership of the Trust and the post held by him and also directs the petitioner to desist from such activities in future. It is these orders that are called in question in these petitions.

¶76

The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently argue and contend that all the issues sprang from the demand made by the petitioner for payment of the amount that was deducted from the salary. The petitioner was met with an order of removal from service. The order of removal from service was set aside by the Appellate Authority and a modified penalty of reduction in time scale by two stages was imposed. The Disciplinary Authority who sought to implement the order of the Appellate Authority travels beyond and transfers the petitioner and advises him to desist from the activities of the

¶77

¶78

Trust. The submission of the learned counsel is, those directions are without jurisdiction.

¶79

On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the LIC Sri.Timmanna Bhat Devathe would vehemently refute the submissions and contend that the petitioner being a Typist was never available in the office since he was at Mysuru city branch for the last 25 years, he was transferred to Sakleshpur and that transfer being an incidence of service, no fault can be found with the order of the Disciplinary Authority in passing the impugned orders. He would submit that the Regulations clearly bar taking up any outside employment during the subsistence of the employment with the LIC and seeks dismissal of the writ petitions.

¶80

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶81

¶82

In the light of the facts obtaining in the cases at hand

¶83

and the submissions made by the respective learned counsel, the only issue that falls for consideration is,

¶84

‘Whether the direction of the Disciplinary Authority while implementing the orders of the Appellate Authority was permissible in law?’

¶85

The afore-narrated facts not being in dispute need not be reiterated. The petitioner was appointed as a Typist on 30.08.1990 and during the subsistence of his employment, a Trust is formed which the petitioner claims to be by the members of his family. A Trust is formed on 17.01.2000 in the name and style of “Hosamane Alamelamma Ramaswamy Iyengar Trust”. After the formation of the Trust, complaints began to visit the office of the LIC against the petitioner and in that regard a statement was sought from the hands of the petitioner on 01.03.2013. The reply of the petitioner which is germane is as follows:

¶86

“From H.R.BHAGAVAN

¶87

¶88

Typist, S.R.No.562283 L.I.C. Of India, Branch-I, K.R.S.Road, Mysore-570 020.

¶89

¶90

The Senior Divisional Manager L.I.C. of India Divisional Office MYSORE-570 015.

¶91

Dear Sir,

¶92

Sri.K.T.Hemanna, Manager (OS) had visited our office on 01.03.2013 and at around 2.30 pm, I was called to the Manager’s chamber and showed me an anonymous letter received by the office. I was asked to give my statement regarding the contents of the letter. In this regard, I would like to state as follows:

¶93

I have put in 23 years of service and proud to be an employee of the Corporation and discharging my duties properly and I have not conducted myself in any manner at any point of time which will bring bad name to the Corporation. I have worked as Typist and Cashier and now as an Assistant. Until recently, I was working in Appraisal section, Sales Department. The department has got excellent Audit rating for four consecutive years. There was no complaint from any one regarding my work.

¶94

I am an M.Sc., B.Ed., with fellowship. When I was Typist and also as Cashier, I applied for promotion several times and was not offered the same. By going through the promotion lists of those years, you can observe that those who are younger in service and less qualified were promoted, the reason best known to the Management and the respective interview committees. By this injustice, I was denied a chance to work in higher cadres which would have given me an opportunity to apply my knowledge. But that

¶95

¶96

has neither lowered my allegiance to my beloved office nor has it belittled my engagement with allotted work in the office. I am discharging my duties in the present cadre with utmost satisfaction and extending my services to Cash and other departments whenever there is a need. Ever year, during March end, I am working as additional cashier at the request of the office when other employees are reluctant to work under pressure.

¶97

Few months back, the working departments of all the staff members were changed and I was assigned Incremental scanning, PS department. Immediately after taking charge, I inspected the files and came to know that around 30,000 files were there for keying-in from the year 2009. In the changed department, I was not provided with a PC as there was shortage. I and our organization approached the Manager to provide me a PC so that I can clear the pending files. We were told that DO will supply shortly but the PCs did not come in time. I thought that the PC in Manager’s chamber may be utilized for this purpose until an alternative arrangement is made. Manager also agreed for the same. I could do some work but could not sit in his chambers throughout the office hours for obvious reasons. I use to sit wherever the PC is free. There was a pressure form the Divisional Office to clear the files for incremental scanning. On most of the days, I was not getting a PC during office hours forcing me to work beyond office hours and on holidays. It is only because of my initiative to clear the pending files early, I worked in several PCs wherever they were free and also beyond office hours and on holidays so that I could clear all the pending files in a very short time. The data can be verified form the machine. This has been appreciated by the Branch Officials and also Divisional Office Officials who are in-charge of this work.

¶98

In addition to this work, I am typing Duplicate policy bonds whenever they are given to me. I have never refused to do that work in-spite of the fact that it is not my assigned work and other Typists who are working as Assistants in our Branch Office have refused to type Duplicate policy bonds. I

¶99

¶100

am doing that work voluntarily. If in some case there was a delay, it may be during my leave period or non-availability of particular bond or some technical reason. The reason could have been found if the writer had provided the policy number or the date and period of delay. If at all that delay had happened during my absence, it shows that other typists in the Branch Office were not willing to do this work.

¶101

Regarding my association with a Trust, I state as follows: A trust has been formed by our family members for a social cause and are running an Educational Institution. When the other family members are away from Mysore, some work is assigned to me. When such a situation comes, I have been managing it in such a manner that it will not affect my official work in the Corporation. I do involve in social activities beyond office hours and on holidays which has given me a some sense of purpose and satisfaction.

¶102

Hence, I think that this is a false complaint with a mala fide intention to tarnish my image in the office which may please be ignored. I also submit that the office shall not heed to such anonymous letters.

¶103

Thank you,

¶104

Yours faithfully,

¶105

Sd/(H.R.BHAGAVAN) 01/03/2013.”

¶106

After submission of the aforesaid reply, the petitioner

¶107

submits his application for voluntary retirement on 22.03.2013. The same was rejected on 24.04.2013 by the following order:

¶108

“Ref:P&IR 24^th April 2013

¶109

¶110

Sri H.R.Bhagvan Typist, S.R.No.:562283 L.I.C. Of India Branch Office-I MYSORE.

¶111

Dear Sir,

¶112

Re: Your request letter dated 22.3.2013 to retire voluntarily.

¶113

We are in receipt of your above letter wherein, you have stated that you are unable to continue in the service as you have to discharge the family responsibility. In view of that, you have opted for voluntary retirement and requested us to relieve you on 1.6.2013.

¶114

In this connection, we regret to inform you that it is not found possible to accede to your request of Voluntary Retirement since, you have not fulfilled the condition as stipulated in the Reg.19(1) of Staff Regulations, 1960.

¶115

Yours faithfully, Sd/Senior Divisional Manager.”

¶116

and salary for the said month was deducted from out of the

¶117

salary of the petitioner. Communication between the petitioner

¶118

and respondents were made with regard to payment of salary.

¶119

The same was not acceded to. When the petitioner was sought

¶120

to be elevated to the position of Secretary of the Trust, he submits a representation on 24.08.2013 seeking the permission

¶121

¶122

to be a member of the Trust in the capacity of Secretary or even

¶123

the President of the Trust. This is rejected by the following

¶124

order:

¶125

“Ref:P&IR 7t^h October 2013 Sri H.R.Bhagawan Typist, S.R.No.:562283 L.I.C. Of India Branch Office-I MYSORE. Dear Sir,

¶126

Re: Permission to be a member of a family Trust.

¶127

This has reference to your letter dated 24.8.2013 on the above subject.

¶128

On going through the records submitted by you, apart from the Secretary of your family trust, you are also authorised to operate the Bank Account along with President of the Trust, which requires your physical presence and active involvement in the Trust’s Office. As a Head of the trust, you have to represent the Trust in all the forums. The above activities requires your time and devotion, which in turn hampering in discharging your duties as an employee of the Corporation.

¶129

Hence, it is not possible to accede your request to permit you to continue as Secretary of your family Trust. Your resignation to the post of Secretary of the trust should reach the office within 10 days from the date of receipt of this letter, further action will ensure without any reference to you in this matter.

¶130

Yours faithfully, Sd/Senior Divisional Manager.”

¶131

¶132

When the petitioner did not stop despite the aforesaid

¶133

communications, a charge sheet came to be issued against the petitioner for breach of the Regulations, with particular reference to Regulations 21, 24, 28 of the Regulations. Said Regulations read as follows:

¶134

“Liability to abide by the Regulations:

¶135

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, be give 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.

¶136

Employee to promote the Corporation’s interest:

¶137

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.

¶138

Employees not to seek outside Employment:

¶139

28. No employee shall accept, solicit or seek any outside employment or office whether stipendiary or honorary, without the previous sanction of the competent authority.”

¶140

¶141

For violation of the aforesaid Regulations, a charge sheet

¶142

was issued and the charge sheet resulted in the imposition of penalty of removal from service by the order of the Disciplinary Authority, against which, the petitioner prefers an appeal to the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority considering the submissions made in the appeal memorandum passes a detailed order and modifies the penalty of removal from service imposed by the Disciplinary Authority to that of reduction by two stages in the time scale of pay. The order of penalty reads as follows:

¶143

“NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the powers vested in me under Regulation 46(2) of the LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960, I do hereby order that the penalty of “Removal from service” imposed on Sri H.R.Bhagavan by the Disciplinary Authority in terms of Regulation 39(1) (f) of the LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 be and is hereby modified into one of “Reduction by two stages in the time scale of pay applicable to his cadre” in terms of Regulation 39(1) (d) of the aforesaid (Staff) Regulations, 1960. I also order that the period of his absence from duty from the date of “Removal” i.e., 19.2.2015 to the date of his resumption of duty in pursuance of this order be and is hereby treated as “DiesNon”.

¶144

Dated at Hyderabad this 12^th day of November, 2015.”

¶145

¶146

This order is passed on 12.11.2015. Seeking to be implementing

¶147

the order dated 12.11.2015, the Disciplinary Authority passes an order on 21.11.2015, which reads as follows:

¶148

“Re: Appeal Preferred by you to the appellate authority vide your appeal dated 14.5.2015-REINSTATEMENT.

¶149

This has reference to the above matter. We are in receipt of a letter Ref:SCZ/P&IR/ER/D-R/DISC/ dated 12.11.2015 addressed to the undersigned enclosing the Order of Appellate Authority dated 14.11.2015.

¶150

We are enclosing the said order wherein the penalty has been modified to “Reduction by two stages in the time scale of pay applicable to his cadre” in terms of Regulation 39(1)(d) of LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 with effect from the date on which you report at the branch mentioned herein below:

¶151

According to the instructions of the Competent Authority at Zonal Office:

¶152

(1) you are hereby posted to Sakleshpur Branch Office as Typist. Hence, you are hereby advised to report for duty on or before 05.12.2015 at the said Branch Office.

¶153

(2) Further, you are hereby advised to resign from the primary membership of the Trust and Post held by you and you are also advised to desist from such activities in future.

¶154

If you fail to report on or before the said date, we construe that, you are not interested to taking up the assignment. The Appellate Authority Order is enclosed in duplicate with an

¶155

¶156

instruction to return copy of the order to us duly acknowledging the same.”

¶157

The order seeks to reinstate the petitioner to service in terms of

¶158

the order of the Appellate Authority. A superfluous observation is made which was not the order of the Appellate Authority that the petitioner is posted to Sakleshpur branch office and is advised to report to duties on 5.12.2015 and further advised that the petitioner should resign from the primary membership of the Trust and the post held and also advised to desist from such activities in future. This is the bone of contention in the petition, rightly so.

¶159

The petitioner gave a representation on 30.11.2015 regarding the directions of the Disciplinary Authority being over and above what the Appellate Authority has ordered. This also came to be rejected on 26.12.2015 and several representations thereon met its rejection by the Disciplinary Authority on 19.02.2016. The order dated 19.02.2016 reads as follows:

¶160

“Re:- Your representations dated 04.01.2016 and 21.1.2016.

¶161

¶162

This has reference to your representation dated 04.01.2016 requesting for posting at Mysore. As per the instructions of Competent Authority of Zonal Office vide their letter Ref:SCZ/P&IR/ER/D-4/DISC dated 12.11.2015, you have been posted to Sakleshpur Branch Office. Now, the undersigned has once again examined your request and found it not possible to accede to your request for posting to Mysore.

¶163

In this regard we write to inform you that, as per the instructions of the Competent Authority at Zonal Office, we have already communicated to you regading your reinstatement and posting, vide our letter dated 21.11.2015 and to report at Sakleshpur BO before 05.12.2015. In this connection, we again advised you vide our letter dated 26.12.2015 to report at the said branch within 7 days from the date of receipt of our letter.

¶164

Since, you have not reported to the place of posting i.e. Sakleshpur Branch Office and failed to adhere to the instructions given in respect of y-our re-instatement, we construe that, you are not interested to join the Corporation.

¶165

With regard to your letter dated 21.1.2016, requesting payment of wage arrears, we wish to inform that, in terms of Regulation 39, you are removed from the services of the Corporation and on reinstatement also, as of now, you have not reported at Sakleshpur Branch Office, hence your request for payment of wage arrears cannot be considered, in tune with the Life Insurance Corporation of India Class-III & ClassIV Employees Revision of Terms and Conditions of Service, Amendment Rules, 2016, employees whose services had been terminated under Reg.39 of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Rules, 1960, during the period between 1.8.2012 and 14.01.2016 (both days inclusive) shall not be eligible for the arrears on account of this revision.

¶166

¶167

Considering your representation dated 4.1.2016, the undersigned on sympathetic grounds you are hereby give one more opportunity to report at Sakleshpur Branch Office. Hence, you are advised to join the Branch Office, on your reinstatement on or before 29.2.2016.

¶168

No more correspondence in this regard will be entertained.”

¶169

If the afore-quoted orders are read in tandem what

¶170

becomes unmistakably clear is the order of the Disciplinary Authority travelling beyond what the Appellate Authority had ordered. The order of the Appellate Authority was plain and simple. Modification of the order of penalty of removal of service to that of reduction in time scale by two stages. No other direction was issued by the Appellate Authority. While implementing the orders, the Disciplinary Authority could not have travelled beyond the order of the Appellate Authority and directed transfer and also impose resignation of the petitioner from the Trust, as all those factors were looked into by the Appellate Authority while partly allowing the appeal in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, those orders of the Disciplinary

¶171

¶172

Authority warrants appropriate interference at the hands of this Court.

¶173

The other contention of the learned counsel that the Appellate Authority could not have imposed a penalty of reduction in time scale even does not merit consideration as it was the Appellate Authority, taking a lenient view, imposed the said penalty. The Disciplinary Authority, no doubt, has travelled beyond what the Appellate Authority had ordered that too quoting that on the instructions and directions of the Competent Authority, the respondents have filed their objections, but have not placed any such instructions given by the Competent Authority to direct what the Disciplinary Authority has ordered. Therefore, that part of the order of the Disciplinary Authority is rendered unsustainable. However, it would be open to the Disciplinary Authority to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law.

¶174

¶175

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶176

ORDER

¶177

(i) W.P.No.45111/2015 is disposed as having become infructuous.

¶178

(ii) W.P.No.58361/2016 is allowed in part. The orders of the Disciplinary Authority dated 21.11.2015 (Annexure ‘Z’) and 19.02.2016 (Annexure ‘AE’) stand quashed.

¶179

(iii) Petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential service benefits that would flow from the obliteration of the aforesaid orders in clause (ii) (supra) .

¶180

(iv) The quashment of the orders will not preclude the Competent Authority to exercise its rights and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law.

¶181

¶182

In view of disposal of the petitions, pending applications

¶183

stand disposed as a consequence.

¶184

Sd/JUDGE

¶185

bkp CT:MJ

Sri H R Bhagavan v. L I C of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri H R Bhagavan v. L I C of India

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 Mamatha Vs State of Karnataka

Ramachandra Vs Sujatha H B

Manjunath Vs State of Karnataka

Domnic @ Jommy Vs the State by

Shivakumar B Vs State of Karnataka

Bethel Ag Church Vs a Ramkrishna