Allowed

D.S. Rao v. Executive Committee, LIC of India

Telangana HC13 Apr 2010WP/2032/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Court held that the appellate authority under LIC Staff Regulations failed to comply with Regulation 46(2) by not addressing procedural compliance, justification of findings, or penalty proportionality. The order rejecting the appeal was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration within three months.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 28.06.2000 rejecting the appeal was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration in compliance with Regulation 46(2) within three months.

D.S. Rao Vs Executive Committee, LIC of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.2032 OF 2001

¶3

DATED 13TH A PRIL, 2010

¶4

BETWEEN

¶5

D.S.Rao … Petitioner and Executive Committee, LIC of India, Central Office, Jeevan Bhima Marg, Bombay.

¶6

And Others … Respondents

¶7

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.2032 OF 2001

¶9

ORDER:

¶10

The petitioner was an Assistant Divisional Manager in the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC of India) challenges the disciplinary action visited on him under order dated 04.08.1999 whereby his pay was reduced to the minimum in the time scale applicable to his post and the disciplinary authority directed recovery of the financial loss of Rs.1,66,321.14 ps. from him. The aforestated punishment was visited upon the petitioner under Regulation 39(1)(d) and 39(1)(c) of the LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The petitioner also challenges the order dated 28.06.2000 being the communication addressed by the Executive Director of the LIC of India informing him of the dismissal of his appeal. He seeks a consequential direction to the LIC of India to release all his pensionary benefits taking into notional consideration of the two promotions that he would have obtained and also seeking refund of the sum of Rs.2,15,202.89 ps. recovered from him.

¶11

Though contentious and detailed arguments were advanced by the learned counsel appearing on both sides, I am not inclined to go into the merits of the case as the matter commends amenability to disposal on other grounds.

¶12

It is relevant to note that the LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 were framed in exercise of the powers vested in the Corporation by Section 49(2)(b) and (bb) of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956. Therefore, these Regulations partake a statutory flavour. It was under

¶13

Regulations 39(1)(c) and 39(1)(d) that the LIC of India imposed punishment upon the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, he filed an appeal under Regulation 40. Regulation 46 speaks of consideration of appeals and reads as under:

¶14

“Consideration of Appeals:

¶15

46.(1) In the case of an appeal against an order of suspension, the appellate authority shall consider whether in the light of the provisions of Regulation 36 and having regard to the circumstances of the case the order of suspension is justified or not and confirm or revoke the order accordingly.

¶16

(2) In the case of an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in Regulation 39, the appellate authority shall consider––

¶17

(a) whether the procedure prescribed in the Regulations has been complied with, and if not, whether such noncompliance has resulted in failure of justice:

¶18

(b) whether the findings are justified; and

¶19

(c) whether the penalty imposed is excessive, adequate or inadequate, and pass orders––

¶20

(i) setting aside, reducing, confirming or enhancing the penalty; or

¶21

(ii) remitting the case to the authority which imposed the penalty or to any other authority with such direction as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.

¶22

Provided that––

¶23

(i) the appellate authority shall not impose any enhanced penalty which neither such authority nor the authority which made the order appealed against is competent in the case to impose;

¶24

(ii) no order imposing an enhanced penalty shall be passed unless the appellate is given an opportunity of making any representation which he may wish to make against such enhanced penalty; and

¶25

(iii) if the enhanced penalty which the appellate authority proposes to impose is one of the penalties in clauses (b) to (g) of Regulation 39, and an enquiry under the said Regulation has not already been held in the case, the appellate

¶26

authority shall itself hold such inquiry or direct that such inquiry be held and thereafter on consideration of the proceedings of such inquiry and after giving the appellant an opportunity of making any representation which he may wish to make against such penalty, pass such orders as it may deem fit.

¶27

(3) All appeals should be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and in any event not later than 6 months from the date of receipt of the appeal by the appellate authority.”

¶28

The above Regulation therefore envisages that the appellate authority should apply its mind and consider the various aspects detailed under sub-clauses (a) and (b) of clause (2) of Regulation 46. In the present case, the communication dated 28.06.2000 addressed by the Executive Director of the LIC of India to the petitioner reproduced the consideration of the petitioner’s appeal by the Appellate Body, viz., the Executive Committee:

¶29

“The Executive Committee in its 474^th Meeting held on 20.04.2000 has, after duly considering the Appeal dated 23.08.1999 along with the records of the concerned disciplinary case, submitted by Shri D.S.Rao, S.R.No.415472, Faculty Member, Zonal Training Centre, Hyderabad, hereby concludes that there is no merit in his Appeal and hence the Appeal be and is hereby rejected.”

¶30

It is manifest that the minutest aforestated do not reflect consideration of the petitioner’s appeal in accordance with the Regulation 46(2). Once a statutory right of appeal is made available to an employee, it is incumbent upon the appellate authority to deal with the appeal in accordance with the statutory Regulation. The employee having availed such appellate remedy is entitled to know as to what way the appellate authority to take the decision that it chose to. In the present case, the appellate authority was statutorily required to verify whether the procedure had been complied with, whether the lower authorities findings recorded by the disciplinary authority were justified and whether the punishment imposed was proportionate. The communication addressed by the LIC of India to the petitioner

¶31

extracting the minutes of the appellate Executive Committee reflect that the Appellate Body did not record its finding in respect of any of the three aspects which it was required to do under Regulation 46(2).

¶32

The appellate remedy provided to the petitioner under the statutory Regulation cannot be rendered nugatory by the casual and indifferent approach adopted by the Appellate Body as in the present case. The order of the appellate authority in the meeting held on 20.04.2000, the result of which was communicated to the petitioner under the letter dated 28.06.2000 addressed by the Executive Director of the LIC of India is accordingly set aside. The matter is directed to the appellate authority for fresh consideration in accordance with Regulation 46(2) of the LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. As the matter has been pending for sufficiently long time, it is in the interest of justice that the appellate authority shall dispose of the appeal expeditiously and in any event not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶33

The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part. But, in the circumstances of the case, without costs.

¶34

____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 13^TH APRIL, 2010. VGSR

D.S. Rao v. Executive Committee, LIC of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.S. Rao v. Executive Committee, LIC of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Depot Manager, Vs Sri Mohan

Rep. by its Deputy General Manager, Sri Sanjib Choudhry, Vs Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court

Y.Ramchander, Vs The Executive Engineer

V.Koteswara Rao, Vs Girijan Cooperative Corporation Ltd.

A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, Vs R.Narayana

Smt. Shaik Shameem, Vs The Director of Intermediate Education