Allowed

B.Laxman v. the Zonal Manager, LIC of India

Telangana HC20 Feb 2023WP/18557/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana allowed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of a statutory appeal against removal. The Court set aside the order for being reasonless and remanded the matter to the appellate authority to decide on merits, stating that valuable rights would be affected if the appeal was dismissed without considering the merits. Costs were not awarded.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 10.06.2003 set aside; matter remanded to respondent No.1 to pass orders afresh on merits; no order as to costs.

B.Laxman Vs the Zonal Manager, LIC of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁷ ]

¶2

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH^{DAY OF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY THREE}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTTCE A.ABHISHEKREDDY}

¶7

Between:

¶8

B.Laxman, S/o Ramachand, Aged^{about35 years, Cashier (SR.No.558472)} (Under Order of Removal) tlC of lndia, Branch Office^Devarakonda, Nalgond a District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The Zonal Manager, LIC of lndia,^LIC of^{lndia,Hyderabad.} 2. The Senior Divisi-onal Manager,^{(Disciplinary Authority) Secunderabad} Division, Secunderabad.

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of^{lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith, the High Court maybe} pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more^particularly one^{in the nature of} Writ of Certiorari to call for the records^{relating to the order dt. 10/06/2003 passed} by the 1st Respondent and^quash the same^{by declaring the sameas void, illegal,} arbitrary and contrary to regulation^{46(2) of the LIC (Staff) Regulations,1960and} consequently direct the 1st respondent^{to passappropriate orders on the statutory} appeal dt. 16t0412003 filed by the^{petitioner against the orders of removal by} strictly following the regulation^{46(2) of the LIC (Staff)Regulations.}

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRI S.JAGADISH} Counsel for the Respondent^{No.1: SRI M.V.SURESH} Counsel for the Respondent No.2:^{SRI SINGAM SRINIVAS}

¶15

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶16

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18557 of 2004

¶17

ORDER:

¶18

Questioning^{the order dated10.06.2003passed by the} respondent No. | - Zonal Manager, LIC of India, Hyderabad, rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of removal dated 30.09.2000 on the s6le ground of delay, the petitioner has filed the presenl. Writ Petition.

¶19

The brief facts of the celse are as follows:

¶20

The petitioner was working as Cashier at Devarkonda Branch, Secunderabad Division, LIC of India, Hyderabad. That the petitioner was issued a charge memo dated 20.02.1998, to which, the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 03.03.1998 denying the charges. The Enquiry Officer has conducted enquiry and subrnitted her report on 14.10.1999 stating that the enquiry cannot be proceeded with. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 - Senior Divisional Manager (Disciplinary Authority), Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad, has passed the order ol, rernoval on 30.09.2000.

¶21

. :...,-

¶22

AAR, J W.P.No- 18557 of 2004

¶23

¶24

Thereafter, against the said order of removal dated 30.09.2000, the petitioner has filed appeal^{before the respondentNo.1 with} the delay of 14 months. The^{respondent No.l has rejectedthe} appeal filed by'the^petitioner, vide order dated^10.06.2003. Hence, the petitioner has filed the^present Writ^Petition.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the respondent No.l/appellate authority without taking into consideration the reasons mentioned for the delay in filing the appeal, has, in a mechanical and pedantic lnanner, rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner vide order dated 10.06.2003, by simply stating that the reasons given by the petitioner are not convincing. The learned counsel has stated that the order impugned dated 10.06.2003 is bereft of reasons. That under Regulation 4l of LIC of lndia (Staff) Regulations, 1960, the appellate authority has ample power to condone the delay, if any, but, the respondent No.l, being the appellate authority, vide order dated 10.0(r.2003 has mechanically rejected the statutory appeal filcd by the^petitioner solely on the^ground of limitation, without going^into the merits or dernerits of the t

¶26

AAR, J W.P.No.18557 of 2004

¶27

¶28

case, therefore, the learned counsel has^prayed this Court to allow the present Writ Petition.

¶29

The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of^the respondent Corporation has stated that the^respondent No.l/appellate authority duly taking^into consideration^{the fact} that no valid reason was^given by^{the petitioner,has rightly} dismissed the appeal vide order^{dated10.06.2003. That the} appeal was filed by the^petitioner with^{delay of as much as} 2t/z fears and lhe only reason^given by^{the petitioner for the} dclay was tltat the documents^{were misplaced during cleaning} o1'the house. l-hat the said^reasoni3 only^{concocted for the} purpose o1'the appeal and no evidence was^produced by^the petitioner to substantiate his claim. Therefore, the respondent No.l/appellate authority had no other option except^{to dismiss} the appeal on lhe ground of limitation and^{prayed to dismiss} the Writ Petition.

¶30

A perusal o1' the impugned order dated 10.06.2003 irrclicates tlrat the appeal filed by the-petitioner was dismissed resporrdent No.l/appeilate authority sorery on the by '^e

¶31

E:"'.""-"....'.."--

¶32

AAR, J W.P.No. 18557 of 2004

i I L

}::i 1

ground that the reason given by the petitioner for delayed submission of the appeal was not convincing. Except the said reason, no other reason has been given by the appellate authority.

¶37

This Couft as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of decisions has held that the authority concemed has to give reasons for either dismissing or allowing the applications. However, it is pertinent to refer to the decision of tlre Hon'ble Supreme -court in Assistant coruruissioner,

¶38

commercial ra:c Departruent, l4/orks contract und Leasing, Kota

¶39

vs. Shukla antl Brotltersl, wherein it was held as under:

¶40

y'hila exarcising the power of judicial review on adntinistrutitc action and ntore particularly the judgment of cutrts itt ttppeal before the higher court, providing of reason.s can nerar be dispensed with. The doctrine of audi alterant purtam hu.t three basic essentials. Firstly, a person again.st w,luttrt nn ordar is required to be passed or whose rights arc likely to ba affectecl adversely must be granted an opportunity of bcing heurd. Secondly, the authority concerned should provide o fuir und lransparent procedure and lastly, the authority conccrncd ntust apply its ntind and dispose of the nmtter by a reusorrcd or spcaking order ....

¶41

.... A litigant who altproaches the court with any grievance in ttcutrcktnc'e vvith lau, is entitled to know the reasons.fitr grant rsr rt' jccliott o/'his prayer. Reasons are the soul of orders. Nonraconling ol-rcosons could lead to dual in/irmities; Jirstly, it trtu.' cuusc prejudice to the afected party ancl secondly, ntorc lttrrt^{i ut lu rl.r,. lturuper thc proper} administratio n of^{j ust} ice. T'lrcsc prittciltle.s drc not only applicable to administrative or executive ttctiotrs, luil tlrc.y upply witlt equal force and, in fact, w,ith u grcutcr dt'grce of precision to judicial pronounceruenJLs. T'\rc

¶42

'^{(2O1O)4 SCC785}

¶43

AAR, J W.P.No. 18557 of 2004

¶44

¶45

orders of the court must reflect what u,eighecl with the court in grantittg or eleclining the relief claimed by the applicant."

¶46

But, in this particular case, except stating that the reason given by the petitioner for the delay was not convincing, no other reason was given by the respondent No.1/appellate authority, in the impugned order dated 10.06.2003. Unless the reasons are recorded by the appellate authority, it is difficult for the higher Courts/Tribunals to really know the rnind of the appellate authority and appreciate the merit of the order impugned.

¶47

Even though the learned Standing Counsel has stated that the petitioner may as well prefer a Memorial to the Chairman of the respondent Corporation, this Court is not inclined to relegate the petitioner to the Chairman of the respondent Corporation after a lapse of almost l9 years.

¶48

Admittedly, in this case, the petitioner has filed statutory appeal. In view of the same, the appellate authority instead of goirrg into the questions on procedural delay ought to have

¶49

i i rl

¶50

AAR, J W.P.No. 18557 of 2004

¶51

¶52

decided the appeal on merits as valuable rights of the petitioner would be adversely affected.

¶53

Having regard to the above and in view of^afore-cited judgment in Shukla and Brothers (l supra), this Court is of the opinion that ends ofjustice would be served, if the order dated 10.06.2003 passed by the appellate authority is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the appellate authority to^pass orders afresh on merits.

¶54

Therefore, the impugned order dated 10.06.2003 is hereby set aside and this Writ Petition is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the respondent No.l/appellate authority to pass orders afresh on merits.

¶55

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

¶56

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶57

That Rule Nisi^{has been made absolute as above'} Witness THE HON'BLE^{THE CHIEFJUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN' onthisMONDAY,} THE TWENTIETH^{DAY OF FEBRUARYTWO THOUSAND AND TWENW}

¶58

SD/. K. ASSISTANT

¶59

//TRUE COPY/ SECTION FFICER

¶60

¶61