This intra-court appeal challenged the Single Judge's order quashing disciplinary proceedings against an LIC employee for refusing cashier duties under a rotational panel. The appellant argued policy errors but the apex bench dismissed the appeal, finding no illegality in the lower order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
W.A.No.313/2021 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
(BY SRI BHAT RAMACHANDRA GANAPATI, ADV.)
AND:
SRI KRISHNAPPA KONCHADY S/O LATE GURUVAMOGERA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT AT BRANCH NO.1, LIC OF INDIA MANGALORE, RESIDING NEAR S.R. HP SCHOOL, KONCHADY POST
2
MANGALURU - 575 008, (RESPONDENT IS THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. NO.6382/2015). ...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. DEEPASHREE D., ADV., FOR SRI NAGENDRA NAIK, ADV.,)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10/12/2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.6382/2015 BY DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION BEARING NO. 6382/2015 AND TO PASS SUCH OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, VISHWAJITH SHETTY J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
This intra court appeal has been filed assailing the order dated 10.12.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.6382/2015.
3
name from the panel of Assistants who were required to do the job of cashier on rotation. Inspite of his request, the Corporation had refused to delete his name from the panel of Assistants and it is under these circumstances, the respondent had refused to discharge the duties of cashier. In this background, a disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the respondent and pursuant to the enquiry report dated 11.01.2014, after issuance of show cause notice to the respondent, the order of punishment was passed against the respondent wherein the basic pay of the respondent was reduced by one stage in the time scale that was applicable to him. As against the said order, the respondent preferred an appeal and even the said appeal was dismissed, and therefore, he had approached this Court in W.P.No.6382/2015. The learned Single Judge of this Court vide the order impugned had allowed the writ petition, quashed the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority and had directed the appellant-Corporation to consider the request of the respondent for removal of his name from the panel of Assistants within a prescribed time. Being
4
aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is before this Court.
5
6
considered positively by the Corporation. Though the respondent had informed his unwillingness to handle the post of cashier, the Corporation was virtually compelling him to handle the said post which he had refused and it is in this background, the disciplinary proceedings was initiated against him.
7
same does not calls for interference by this Court. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly, the same is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
KK
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned Single Judge erred in allowing the writ petition challenging the penalty imposition for refusal to discharge cashier duties under the new rotational policy.
Whether the corporate circulars dated 2009 superseded the penalty proceedings initiated against the employee for refusing cashier duty.
Whether there is any discretion for this Court to interfere with the Single Judge's finding that the disciplinary proceedings were not justified.
The Zonal Manager & Appellate Authority, Life Insurance Corporation of India
Sri Krishnappa Konchady
Alok Aradhe
S. Vishwasheth Shetty
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
