The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a penalty of reduction of basic pay. The Court held the inquiry was valid, the petitioner failed to cooperate and sign proceedings, and cited case law was distinguishable on facts.
Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.
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.
[3383 I
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEIVIBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETW
WRIT PETITION NO: 7050 OF 2017
Between:
Sri. Y. Maheshwar, S/o.Late Y. Pentaiah,Occ Senior Assistant,(E.No.561 18) RyO. H.No.23-6-454, Gowlipura Market, Hyderabad, Office at National lnsurance Co., Ltd., Hyderabad, Divisional Office-lV, Twin City Market Complex, ll Floor, M.J. Road, Hyderabad - 500065.
...PETITIONER
AND
..RES'ONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndiapraying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or orders more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the'l st Respondent order dated 19-07-201 3 in modifying the order dated 30-10-2012 passed by the 2nd Respondent which confirmedthe order dated 26-06-2012 of the 3rd Respondent i.e.,penalty of Reduction ofBasic Pay by 1st stage instead of setting aside the orderspassed by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents as totally arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the General lnsurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975, clear violation ofprinciples of naturaljustice besides violating thepetitioners rightguaranteed underArticle14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. SUNIL KUMAR DESHMITKH
Counsel for the Respondents: Smt. SWATI GUDA
The Court made the following: ORDER
HON'BLE SRI .IUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
VIRIT PETITION NO.7OsO OF 2OI7
ORDER:
The present writ petition is filed praying to grant the following relief:
to issue writ of ma,ndamus declaring the 1't respondent order, dated 19.O7.2O13 in modifytng the order dated 30.1O.2012 passed by the 2"d respondent, which confirmed the order dated 26.06.20 12 of the 3'd respondent i.e., penalty of "Reduction of Basic Pay by ls stage" instead of setting aside the orders passed by the 2'a and 3.d respondents as totally arbitrary, illegal and contra-r5r to the General lnsurance (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1975, clear violation of principles of natural jusLice besides violating the petitioner's right guaranteed under Articles 14 and, 2l of the Constitution of Indra and pass other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deern ht ald proper in the interest of justice."
I,NA,J ll'P N) 7050 o.tZ0l7
2
along .vith his mother, the petitioner reached the ofhce at 1l am, by that tin-rt: he was marked as absent in attendance register. The petitioner enquired with Sri Obulapathi as to why absent was marked de spite prior intimation that he would come into olfice late, and is contraty to practice. According to the petitior:rer, the Assistant Manager should have asked him to submit casual leave application lbr forenoon, instcad of marking absent, which action of Sri Obultiltathi was a provocation.
I,N,1.J ll'P No.7050 of )017
J
that the petitioner utteredwords inTelugulanguage quoting Sri Obulapati's caste name.
LNA.J II/P No.7050 of20t7
4
a. Copv of complaint of Sri Obulapati, dated 2Z.Ol.2Oll
lr,Coplof i'itnesses statement as was mentioned in Annexure lV of the Memorandum (Charge Sheet), dated 31.03.20ii - --'..'*
c. C('p) oI Prclimirran lnnuiry- Report (Fact finding committee] o[ SriGurlrel Singh, dalcd Ot.OZ'.ZOI t
1:^9:?rr,, S,:ndarccRegisterof all employees and officers who were preserrt on '27 .Ol.2Oll.
7 . The p<:titioner did not give the name of his defense erssistant and informed the Inquiry Officer that he would do so, during the course of inquiry. on 16.09.2011, the petitioner attended pre liminary inquiry and once again requested the Inquiry Officer to provide documents. However, the inquiry Oflicer provided copy of complaint given by Sri Obulapati, but was silent about other documenrs. '1'he Inquiry Officer procecded further with the regular inquiry from 10.10.2011. According to petitioner, after conducting preliminary rnquiry, the Inquiry Officcr abrupfly conclucled the inquiry without providing the documents sought by him and not
considered thc name of defense assistalt,s requeste(l. The petitioner was au'arded penalty of .rcduction in basic pay b:/ three stages'.
8- Further. in the past, many incidents of such ruptures took place in man-v olfices, but the Management never gave such a harsh punishmcnt to any employee. Even employees fouglLt and gave police cornplaints, but thosc rnatters were resolved peaoefully '.-v,'ith the intericrencc of the respectivc Divisional Managerr; and
Li\A'J l9 P No 7050 of20l7
5
only in the case of petitioner, the Divisional Manager himself instigated and compelled Sri Obulapati to give a complaint against the petitioner. That the original complaint was replaced with the different complaint, which was typed one and thus, the Divisional Manger indulged unethical and immoral act of breach o[ trust and also compelled personnel department, officials to behave fraudulently and with an ill motive to punish the petitioner.
----.-
LNA,J tt'P No.7050 of20t7
6
1 1. Aggrie'ecl by the penalty order dared 26.O6.2Ot2, the petitioner preferred appeal before the respondent No.2 on the ground of violations oi Rules of General lnsurance (Ccnduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rulcs, 1975 and also violation of principles of natural justice i.e., not providing witnesses statements, not providing pleliminary fact finding report of Sri Gurbhej Singh, dated 27.O7.2O11, copy of Attendance Register of all Ofhcers arrd Class III & Class IV cmpl115,6g5 as on 27.Ol.2Oll. The respondent No.2/Appellatc Authorib-, uide order dated 30. 10.2012 rejec;-ed the appeal preferrr:d by the petitioncr.
12' Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred memorial representation to the respondent No. l, dated Ol.O9.2Ol3 a,d the respor:de-nt No. 1/Chairman-cum-Managing Director uide his order
L,\ A,J tl/P No.7050 o.l 2017
7
dated 19.O7.2O13 modified the penalty of reduction of basic pay by three stages to the penalty of reduction of basic pay by one stage instead of setting aside the penalty order.
LNA,J tl'P .Yt 7050 of 2017
8
ciear to the petitioner that documents other than those already menLioned in Annexure-lll woutd be provided during the course of inquiry. That inquiry was conducted properly and in acc:ordance with principles of natural justice, by giving ample opportunitlr to the petrtioner. Therefore, the attegations that enquiry was (:ontrary to pnnciples of natural justicc and Conduct, Discipline and Appeals is not correct.
i 5. It is lurther stated that the prcsenting Officer in hirs report noted that petitioner has refused to sign on the proceedings and notes and the petitioner did not participate in fuLure proceedings after preliminary inquiry. In fact, the final hearing o[ the c:rse was heid on 16. 1 l.2O 1 I in the abscnce of the petitioner, therefrtre, the contention of the petitioner that disciplinary authority abruptly concluded the inquiry is incorrcct. That as pcr presenting Officer brief notes, l.he second day of proceedings shows that the petitioner was troublesome, intolerant, non co_operative and had a<lamant attitude before the inquiry commit[ee. It is stated that only because of magnanimity of disciplinary Authority, the punishment was reduclion to 'reduction o[ basic pay by three stages to the penalt5r of reduction of basic pay by onc stage'. That the decision of the highest authoritl, of thc respondent-insurance company. once given it cannot be modified for any reason. Therefore, question of
LNA,J tt/P No.705O of 2017
9
further consideration of the representations of the petitioner dated 1 1.09.2013 ar,.d IO.O2.2O 14 does not arise.
L7. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was penalized only for being late to the oflice and the punishment is too harsh. He further submitted that proper procedure was not followed and the petitioner was not provided with the documents sought by him during the course of inquiry. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that noL providing the documents sought by petitioner is contrary to the procedure and depriving the petitioner from preparing himself for the inquiry and thus, he was handicapped because of non-supply of documents. Learned counsel for the petitioner had referred to the complaint and show cause notice, memorandum of charges to contend that that the entire procedure followed by respondents was improper. He further contended that MW3 was examined behind back of the petitioner.
.-t& lrarned counsel for the petitioner had also referred to cross examination of the complainant to highlight the point that
I-l''.A..t E:P l'o1050 oI20l7
l0
petitioner has not used filthy language or unparliarnentary Ianguage against the comprainant on earlier occasions and ,1lso the petitioner did not use the words of complainant,s caste. r-earned counsel for the petitioner had also referred to Rule 25(3) and Rule 26 of National Insurance (Conduct, Disciptine & Apperrl) and contended thal inquiry was not proper conducted and documents sought by the petitioner were not provided_
' tgsz sccggz
'tq99s scc sgz
' 12oo+1+ scc 560
o (zors)ru scc sar t 1zotz1 s scc z+z
' lzooz)r scc ::s
'nrR t86 scc 2tt8
LNA,J ttt P No 7050 of 2017
il
and thus, contentions of thepetitioner arecontrary tothe record. Leamed standing counsel referred to the memorandum of charge, dated 3 1.O3.2O 1 1 to point out that the National Insurance Rules, 2Ol2 are duly folhowed and the petitioner was duly intimated about the inquiry to be conducted and statement of articles of charge in Annexure-I. A statement of the imputations of misconductor misbehavior in Annexure-ll. The documents andlist of witnessesin Annexure-Ill and IV are provided to thepetitioner.Therefore,the contention of the petitioner that he was notprovided withthe documents is incorrect. She strenuously submitted that in Annexure-lll, Iist of document is only i.e., the complaintsubmitted by Sri Obulapati Assistant Manager and no other documentswere referred to or relied upon during the inquiry andtherefore,the contention of the petitioner that the documentssought by him were not provided is incorrect.
i. The charged employee was advised to narne the DefenscAssistantor before 30.09.201I for which he agreed howeverhe neitiernamedthe DefenseAssistant nor informed in writing about it. ln rriew of chargedemployee makinginquiry not to go further in the manner that is required tobe conductedand meant upon asking ttre unrelated documentswhich arc not at alltisted in the such charge sheet.
ii.CE is somehow making the inquiry not togo furrher inthe manner that is required to be c.onducted and bent uponaskingtheunrelated documentswhich are not at all, listed in the subject chargcsheet- Time andagain, CEhas been abundantly explained in the rnquiry aboutprocedureto be followedfor tlre
I,NA,J ulP Nt'.7050 of 201 ?
t2
Departnlental Disciplinary proceedings. Instead of CE coopcrating with the rnquiq,, pr-oceedings, he chose ro srall"rhc p.o"."ai.,g"1.,a .,-on" poin, oi,irn.] he hinrself not interesred in attending ,n" p.oaa"a_i" ^ndalso not lntcrcsted to srgn thc copy of the proceedings anJ signed bofi bl; po & IO and rvitiout the srgnahrre of che CE. Thus anitude of CE not adherini ro the laid ao*, p.o."ar." o'inqur; pr')cecdinBS is certainly urnorntrng to rrotaiio"n ot rures and regurations ol the (:ompany.
iir- PO h:rs il.ltroduced the Management witnesses in the regular hearing and after chief examin:rtion is over, CE crossed MWI * ,fra ""p""r" of chargos but not to his defense and continuously asking for tt " a".r-."i" tnaL are not listed in rhe Arricres; of chargc and trying to shrr thc p.o.""ain-g* ini" shows rhat cE is non g,rirrg .t..J co-operaLivc and do not have any patien;e to face" the inquiry ^na with issucs rvhich arc irrelevani in ttre suUleci-inquiry p.n.".ar.rg" CE, afrer abundant explanation about the proccdure io U foito*"a in rhc sutject case, lehem-ently askrng for the documents which are not rcqurred at that mlment and myself assured him that if tiose documents that are- retevant in thc course of proccedings, ccrtainly, they will be marked and made available to him and for which, hc is impatienr and he wanted th"".;;;;.;; as per his letters well be fore th,: start of inquiry proceedings.
iv. Managcment witness Mw2, during pos chief examination, conhrmrd that CE used urrparliamcntary languagc against MWl, CE by his vcry negati\e attitude and inclined to stall rhc.subje;t inquiry proceedirg. in un .b.rpt manner which clcarly indicate his unwillingness tocooperate with?" p.o.""ar.g".
v Finally, CE made uo his mind not to sign the procecdings of ttrc regular hearing and left rhe oflrce, I have sent a cop] of thJ proceedrngs thr,)ugh DM, Hyderabad D.O IV tor CE,s acknowledgment,' Lut to ou? surprise, CE r.efused ro sign lhe document of subject proceedirigs ^.ri ,.t"u..r, "opy o[ confirmation from thc Divisronal Manage. Sri K.Ashok-Vardhan i"--"""f"."a ro support this statemerl( oI submission which is clearly visible in gross violation on ili" pu.t oi CE in adhcring Lo thc insrmctions of his in_charge .
dated 27.O i .20 1 1 given by Sri Obulapati, Assistant Mzrnager, rvherein at paragraph No.3, it is stated that the petitioner on earlier occasions also used to shout and pass derogatory comments before all the staff and this is not the hrst experience. Learned standing counsel also rcferred to cross examination of the petitioner.
Considera tion:
LAA.J tt'P ."''c' 705() o/ 201 7
l3
regard to occurrence of incident ofl 27 .Ol.2Ol1, wherein, the petitioner said to have abused the complainant Sri Obulapati, Assistant Manager by using hlthy language. Further, it was not the Iirst time that the petitioner mis-behaved in the oflice, which is evident from evidence of MW. 1. Cross-examination of MW.l by the petilioner, would also reveal that on previous occasions also, the petitioner misbehaved with the complainant, howeve r, on those occasions petitioner did not use frlthy language.
t..t.J Ll'l' .'o.70i0 of )017
l4
In Mohd.sharif (supra), the issue involved is no reasrtnable opportunit)' u as provided to the employee in the disciplinary proceedings and not furnished all statements and the Hontrlt: Aper Court held that <:mployee was denied reasonable opportunity to defcnd himsclf irr rlisciplinary inquiry.
I,NA,J l4'l' :b 7050 of 20 l7
15
LNI,J Lt;P n'o 7050 of 20t 7
16
employce to place his case and matter is remanded bacl( to the disciplinary authority to proceed from the stage of the enquiry alresh.
LNA,J tl'P No.7050 of 2017
t7
reasonable opportunity to defend himself and thus, declared the impugned order of dismissal is a nullity.
I,NA,J tl.l' No:050 of 2017
l8
acknowledgment, however, the petitioner refused to sign the proceedings
Conclus roIl:
37 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if an1,, shall stand closed.
SD/.. K. AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII
To,
SEcTI6l--oFFIcER
1 2 . One CC to SRt SUNil KUI\4AR DESHMUKH, Advocate [OpUC] 9n" 99to Smr SWAI cuon, no"*rr.j6'dG'l'"" 3 Two CD Copies BIV GJP
!f,rxr
HIGH COURT
DATED:1711112023
ORDER
WP.No.7050 of 2017
HE STAT 6
(
g
o 0 6 0E[ 2023
t D f.O *
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS
/-<br>(6')
\7
il*
\ <br>A$--
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the penalty of reduction of basic pay for misconduct was arbitrary and violated principles of natural justice.
Whether the disciplinary inquiry was conducted in accordance with the General Insurance Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Uttar Pradesh v. Mohd.SharifiReferred¶27
Hardwari Lal v. State of U.p. and othersReferred¶27
Shri Bhagwan Lal Arya vs.Commissioner of police, Dethi ard othersReferred¶27
Brij Bihari Silgh vs. Bihar State Financial CorporatioaaReferred¶27
Vijay Siugh vs. State of Uttar pradesh and othersReferred¶27
Gowt. of A.P. and others vs. A.Venkata flaiduReferred¶27
Kashinath Dikshita vs. Union of India and othersReferred¶27
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Y. Maheshwar
National Insurance Co. Limited
Deputy General Manager & Appellate Authority
Chief Manager & Disciplinary Authority
Deputy Manager & Inquiry Officer
Laxmi Narayana Alishetty
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
