Writ Appeal No. 439 of 2023 · Karnataka High Court · 2024

Judgment

1. LIC OF INDIA, BY ITS CHAIRMAN APPELLATE AUTHORITY, P.B.NO.19953 REGD. OFFICE, YOGAKSHEMA JEEVAN BIMA MARG MUMBAI – 400 021

2. THE ZONAL MANAGER APPELLATE AUTHORITY - I THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA ZONAL OFFICE SOUTH CENTRAL ZONAL OFFICE SAIFABAD HYDERABAD – 600 063

3. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY LIC OF INDIA, DIVISIONAL OFFICE SHIVAMOGGA – 577 205 (BY SRI RAJESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

VASANTHAKUMARY B K Location: High Court of Karnataka …APPELLANTS - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:43028-DB WA No. 439 of 2023 AND:

1. SRI R LOKANATHA S/O LATE B. RAJU AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS HGA(P)SR NO.640037 IT DEPT. LIC OF INDIA DIVISIONAL OFFICE SHIVAMOGGA – 577 204 R/O HIG-43 KALLAHALLI II STAGE VINOBA NAGAR SHIVAMOGGA – 577 204

2. UNION OF INDIA BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT MINISTRY OF FINANCE NEW DELHI – 110 001 (BY SRI R LOKANATHA, R-1-IN-PERSON; SRI B. PRAMOD, CGC FOR R-2) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.02.2023 PASSED IN W.P.NO.15264/2022 BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDES, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:43028-DB WA No. 439 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA) Heard learned advocate for the appellants, learned party-in- person-respondent No.1 and learned Central Government Counsel Mr. B. Pramod for respondent No.2.

2. The challenge in this writ appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, is directed against the judgment and order of learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.15264 of

2.1 The petition of respondent No.1-original petitioner came to be allowed in part and the order of dismissal dated 24.11.2012 passed against him was set aside. The employer was permitted to initiate de novo inquiry against the petitioner in respect of the charges of unauthorised absence. While giving the liberty for initiating de novo inquiry, it was directed by learned Single Judge to reinstate the petitioner forthwith to the post which he held. - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:43028-DB WA No. 439 of 2023

2.2 It was further observed and directed by learned Single Judge that the claim of the petitioner for benefits for the period from

24.11.2012 till the date of his reinstatement is left open to be decided in accordance with law subject to the outcome of the fresh inquiry which may be conducted.

3. Noticing the facts in the background, the petitioner was in employment as Programmer Grade-2 with the Life Insurance Corporation of India-the appellants herein. It appears that pursuant to the First Information Report in Crime No.121 of 2011 registered against the petitioner for the offences under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under the provisions of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, the petitioner came to be suspended on the ground that he was taken in police custody. The suspension was revoked on 22.02.2012.

3.1 It appears that subsequently, the employer imposed penalty of dismissal from service under Regulation 39(1)(f) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. It appears that in the inquiry proceedings which culminated into the order of penalty of dismissal dated 24.11.2012, the petitioner had no effective participation. - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:43028-DB WA No. 439 of 2023

3.2 It appears and was observed by learned Single Judge that the employer referred to the e-mail of the petitioner dated

07.08.2012 in which the petitioner threatened to boycott the inquiry. On the basis of such e-mail, it was concluded that the petitioner was not willing to participate in the inquiry. It further appears that at the start of the inquiry proceedings, a civil suit was instituted by the petitioner for declaration that the inquiry proceedings was illegal invalid on the ground of non-payment of subsistence allowance. The suit was dismissed on the ground of maintainability. Be that as it may.

3.3 The petitioner challenged the order of dismissal dated

24.11.2012 by filing the writ petition. Also called in question was the suspension and further complained about non-payment of subsistence allowance. Learned Single Judge recorded paragraph 6 of the order that the employer stopped the subsistence allowance on the ground that the petitioner had not reported to duty from 27.02.2012, though suspension was revoked.

4. The total controversy, as could be seen from the facts, booked two aspects. Firstly, the challenge was lodged to the dismissal order dated 24.11.2012 passed pursuant to the inquiry. - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:43028-DB WA No. 439 of 2023 The attendant dispute was whether the petitioner had effective participation in the inquiry proceedings or not. The second aspect is about non-payment of subsistence allowance during and after the period of suspension as well as during the pendency of the inquiry. In this regard, rival contentions were advanced.

4.1 It could be noticed from the order of learned Single Judge that it was the submission of the petitioner himself that the petition could be disposed of by quashing the dismissal order giving liberty to the respondents to hold de novo inquiry on the charges, which were two in numbers, with appropriate directions.

4.2 What was recorded by learned Single Judge in paragraph 16 of the order reads thus, “16. The petitioner at this stage submits that the petition could be disposed of quashing the dismissal order [Annexure-B] with liberty to the respondents to hold de novo enquiry on the aforesaid two charges reinstatement forthwith and with leave to the petitioner to seek all consequential benefits subject to the outcome of such enquiry.” appropriate directions - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:43028-DB WA No. 439 of 2023

4.3 As against this, the stand of the employer in the above regard was reflected in the following observations of learned Single Judge found in paragraph 15, “15. When queried, the learned counsel respondents submits dismissal order interfered, circumstances of the case the petitioner will be entitled reinstatement but because a strong case is made out for de novo enquiry on the petitioner’s association with M/s. Metro Marketing Network Company and unauthorized absence, the petitioner’s entitlement from the date of his unauthorized absence to the date of his reinstatement will have to be made subject to further enquiry that will have to be held.”

4.4 In light of the above conspectus and the controversy as well as the concessionary submissions made by both the sides, learned Single Judge disposed of the petition by permitting the employer to initiate de novo inquiry in respect of the charges and further directed to reinstate the petitioner without any monetary or consequential benefits which were made to be subject to the outcome of the fresh inquiry which may be initiated.

5. Two defects in law could be immediately noticed in the operative part of the judgment and order of learned Single Judge. - 8 - NC: 2024:KHC:43028-DB WA No. 439 of 2023 Firstly, while permitting the employer to conduct de novo inquiry against respondent No.1-original petitioner, no time limit was fixed which ought to have been done by learned Single Judge. Secondly, as far as the reinstatement part is concerned, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and others Vs. A. Masilamani [(2013)6 SCC 530], learned Single Judge was not right in directing reinstatement of respondent No.1 while permitting fresh inquiry.

5.1 In the aforesaid decision in Masilamani (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed thus, “It is a settled legal proposition, that once the court sets aside an order of punishment, on the ground that the enquiry was not properly conducted, the court cannot reinstate the employee. It must disciplinary authority for it to conduct the enquiry from the point that it stood vitiated, and conclude the same.” (para 16) concerned

6. In view of the above position, the appeal deserves to be allowed in part with the following directions, - 9 - NC: 2024:KHC:43028-DB WA No. 439 of 2023 (i) The part of the order of learned Single Judge in so far as directing for reinstatement of the petitioner-respondent No.1 is set aside. (ii) The appellants-employer shall not be obliged to reinstate respondent No.1 during the pendency of de novo inquiry which may be conducted by the employer. (iii) The inquiry which may be proposed by the appellants-employer shall be completed within a period of four months from today. (iv) If fresh inquiry is to be initiated, the same shall be initiated within ten days from today. (v) If the appellants-employer is not inclined to conduct fresh inquiry and wants to leave the issues as they stand, respondent No.1 shall be reinstated within fifteen days from today.

6.1 The issue of entitlement and payment of subsistence allowance is kept open for the petitioner-respondent herein to be - 10 - NC: 2024:KHC:43028-DB WA No. 439 of 2023 agitated in an independent proceeding which may be instituted by respondent No.1.

7. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. In view of disposal of the appeal, interlocutory applications would not survive and they stand accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE BKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 107