Sri. H R Bhagavan Vs L I C of India

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

¶16

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

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:35849 WP No. 13253 of 2024

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY L.I.C. OF INDIA, DIVISIONAL OFFICE MYSORE - 570015.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. TIMMANNA BHAT., ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.P AND IR DATED 28.02.2024 ISSUED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-AT AND ETC.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the impugned endorsement vide Annexure-AT dated 28.02.2024, rejecting the request of the petitioner for payment of salary from 19.12.2015 till the date of resumption of the duty, i.e., 19.07.2019, treating the said period as diesnon.

¶27

The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner

¶28

joined the service of the first respondent - Corporation on

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:35849 WP No. 13253 of 2024

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

31.08.1990 (Annexure-A). From 1990, the petitioner continued to work for a period of 24 years at the Mysuru City Branch. When the petitioner was working as a Branch Manager of LIC, a departmental enquiry has been initiated against him under the LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 (for short, ‘the said Regulations’). After conducting the enquiry, the disciplinary authority has imposed the penalty of removal from the service by the impugned order vide Annexure-W on 19.02.2015.

¶32

Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority vide Annexure-Y dated 12.11.2015 modified the penalty of removal into one of reduction by two stages in the time scale of pay applicable to the cadre in terms of Regulation 39(1)(d) of the said Regulations and also the period from the date of removal i.e. 19.02.2015 to the date of resumption of the duty is treated as dies-non. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority, on 21.11.2015 vide Annexure-Z, passed the modified penalty order posting

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:35849 WP No. 13253 of 2024

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

the petitioner to Sakaleshpura Branch as a typist and also directed the petitioner to resign from the primary membership of the trust and the post held by him. Hence, the petitioner submitted a representation vide AnnexureAA on 30.11.2015, seeking permission to report to duty in Mysore. The said representation has been rejected by the respondents vide Annexure-AB dated 26.12.2015.

¶36

Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed WP Nos. 58361/2016 and 45111/2015. This Court, by order dated 22.04.2022 partly allowed the writ petitions holding that the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential service benefits that would flow from the obliteration of the orders dated 21.11.2015 and 19.02.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted representations on 02.02.2024 (Annexure-AQ) and 05.02.2024, seeking payment of salary for the period from 19.02.2015 till 19.07.2019. By the impugned order vide Annexure–AT dated 28.02.2024, the same has been refused and the period has been treated as dies-non.

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:35849 WP No. 13253 of 2024

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶40

The learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following contentions:

¶41

(i) Firstly, the appellate authority, by order dated 12.11.2015 modified the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority from removal into reduction by two stages in the time scale of pay. From the date of removal till resumption of the duty, that period has been treated as dies-non. The disciplinary authority, by order dated 21.11.2015 directed the petitioner to report to duty at Sakaleshpura Branch Office. Immediately, after that, the petitioner submitted a representation vide Annexure-AA on 30.11.2015, requesting the respondents to permit him to join duty in Mysore, since he was working from last 24 years in Mysore. In spite of his request, he has not been allowed to work in Mysore. Therefore, he is entitled to all

¶42

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:35849 WP No. 13253 of 2024

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

consequential benefits, at least from 30.11.2015 till 19.07.2019.

¶45

(ii) Secondly, even though, the appellate authority has not directed the petitioner to report to the duty at Sakaleshpur, contrary to the Appellate Authority’s direction, the Disciplinary Authority has posted the petitioner to Sakaleshpura Branch vide Annexure Z. That order has been quashed by this Court in W.P.No.58361/2016, holding that the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential service benefits. In spite of that, by the impugned order, the service benefits has been denied. Hence, he sought for allowing the writ petition.

¶46

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Corporation raised the following contentions:

¶47

(i) Firstly, the appellate authority, while modifying the removal order passed by the disciplinary authority, has ordered that, the period from the date of removal i.e. 19.02.2015 till the date of his resumption to duty, in

¶48

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:35849 WP No. 13253 of 2024

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

pursuance of the order be treated as dies-non. Therefore, till the petitioner reported to duty on 19.07.2019, he is not entitled to any salary since he has not worked for that period. Therefore, the authority has rightly issued the impugned endorsement.

¶51

(ii) Secondly, even in the earlier round of litigation, the order of the appellate authority has not been challenged and the directions issued by the appellate authority has not been quashed and there was no stay granted by this Court in the earlier round of litigation. In spite of that, he has not reported to duty at Sakaleshpur. Therefore, he is not entitled for any service benefits during that period. Hence, sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶52

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the petition papers.

¶53

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:35849 WP No. 13253 of 2024

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

When the petitioner was working as a Typist, in the City Branch, Mysore City, a departmental enquiry has been initiated. On 19.02.2015, the disciplinary authority, imposed the penalty of removal from the service, which shall not be a disqualification for the future employment. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority, by order dated 12.11.2015 modified the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority 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 said Regulations, and also ordered that the period of his absence from duty, from the date of removal i.e. 19.02.2015 to the date of his resumption to the duty in pursuance of the order be treated as dies-non. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority, on 21.11.2015 communicated the modification of the penalty issued by the Appellate Authority that he has been posted to work at Sakaleshpura, as a Typist, and also directed the petitioner

¶56

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:35849 WP No. 13253 of 2024

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

to resign from the primary membership of the Trust and post held by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation vide Annexure AA on 30.11.2015, requesting the respondent to permit him to report to duty in the Mysore branch. The request of the petitioner has been rejected. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.58361/2016. This Court, by order dated 22.04.2022 has held that the disciplinary authority directed the transfer of the petitioner to Sakleshpura Branch and also directed him to resign from the primary membership of the trust. He travelled beyond the order of the appellate authority. The relevant paragraphs of the said order is extracted below:

¶59

“16. If the afore-quoted orders are read in tandem what 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

¶60

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:35849 WP No. 13253 of 2024

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

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 Authority warrants appropriate interference at the hands of this Court.

¶63

17. 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 traveled 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

¶64

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:35849 WP No. 13253 of 2024

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

Disciplinary Authority to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law.”

¶67

During the pendency of this petition, on 17.07.2019, this Court has directed the petitioner to report to duty. The order passed by this Court is extracted below:

¶68

“As an interim measure, petitioner has pointed out that respondents are reluctant to accept option relating to pension of the petitioner on the score that petitioner has failed to report at Sakleshpura.

¶69

Learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions submitted that petitioner would be reporting at Sakleshpura within two days, since Saturday i.e. on 20.07.2019 is the last date for submission option for pension.

¶70

Therefore, concerned respondent is hereby directed to accept the petitioner’s option for pension, in the event of petitioner reporting at Sakleshpura subject to result of this petition.

¶71

I.A.3/2019 filed for production of Additional documents is allowed.”

¶72

Thereafter, on 19.07.2019, the petitioner has reported to duty at Sakaleshpur. This Court, while

¶73

12 -

¶74

NC: 2025:KHC:35849 WP No. 13253 of 2024

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

disposing of the writ petition, has specifically directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential service benefits that would flow from the obliteration of the orders dated 21.11.2015 and 19.02.2016. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for all service benefits. Without considering the directions issued by this Court, the impugned order vide Annexure-AT has been issued. On this ground alone, the impugned order requires to be quashed.

¶77

Accordingly, the following order is passed: (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned endorsement dated 28.02.2024 issued by the third respondent vide Annexure-AT is quashed. (iii) The respondents are directed to reconsider the representation of the petitioner dated 02.02.2024 (Annexure-AQ), in accordance law and in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.58361/2016 and 45111/

¶78

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:35849 WP No. 13253 of 2024

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

2015 disposed of on 22.04.2022, as expeditiously as possible, not later than three months from the date of receipt of the order.

¶81

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶82

CM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 64

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?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Kenche Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Ravindra B. Jayagonde Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt B K Meera Vs the State Trading Corporation of India Limited

Smt Preethi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Jayanand Gotur Vs the State of Karnataka

G C Siddesh S/O Late Chanabasappa Vs H D Shivamurtappa S/O Kallappa