The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.38363 of 2021 Niranjan Muduli …. Petitioner Mr. R.P. Kar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. A.K. Dash, Advocate -versus- Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others …. Opp. Parties Mr. A.K. Mohanty, Adv. CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No 06. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Decision
ORDER 26.11.2025 Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition with the following prayer: - “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ application, issue rule NISI in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other writ/writs as deem fit and proper calling upon the Opp. Parties to show-cause as to why the impugned order dtd. 16.03.2021 passed by the Senior Divisional Manager-cum- Disciplinary Authority, LIC of India, Divisional Office, Cuttack and order dtd. 18.08.2021 passed by the Zonal Manager-cum-Appellate Authority, LIC of India, the Opp. parties No.3 and 2 vide Annexure-8 and 10 respectively shall not be quashed and why // 2 // the petitioner shall not be exonerated from the alleged charges. In the event of the Opp. Parties fail to show-cause or show insufficient cause said rule be made absolute.” 4. It is contended that in the proceeding initiated against the petitioner, order of punishment was passed vide order dated 16.03.2021 under Annexure- 8 by Opp. Party No.3, relying on the provisions contained under the LIC of India (Agents) Regulations, 2017 (In short 2017 Regulation). 4.1. It is the main contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that such a punishment could not have been imposed taking recourse to the punishment prescribed under Regulation, 2017 as the alleged incident which is the subject matter of the proceeding relates to the period prior to coming into force of the 2017 Regulation. 4.2. It is accordingly contended that since the incidents basing on which the proceeding was initiated, were incidents prior to commencement of the 2017 Regulation, the proceeding could not have been conducted in terms of the 2017 Regulation, and it should have been decided taking into account the provisions contained under the 1972 Regulation. 4.3. It is also contended that such a plea though was taken all through by the petitioner but neither the Disciplinary Authority-Opp. Party No.3 nor the Page 2 of 6 // 3 // Appellate Authority-Opp. Party No.2 take into consideration the said stand of the petitioner in its proper perspective, while passing the order of punishment under Annexure-8, and rejecting the appeal vide order under Annexure-10. 4.4. It is accordingly contended that since the very order of punishment under Annexure-8 has been passed relying on the provisions of 2017 Regulation, which is not applicable to the facts of the present case, both the impugned orders under Annexure-8 and 10 require interference of this Court. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Corporation on the other hand placing reliance on the provisions contained under the aforesaid 2017 Regulation contended that, after passing of the order of punishment under Annexure-8, petitioner in terms of the provisions contained under Regulation-20 of the 2017 Regulation, preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority who happens to be Opp. Party No.2. Since the appeal has now been rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order under Annexure-10, petitioner has got an alternative remedy to make a Memorial before the Chairman of the Corporation, in terms of the provisions contained under Regulation- 24 of the 2017 Regulation. Page 3 of 6 // 4 // 5.1. It is also contended that once the petitioner after being imposed with the punishment, has availed the remedy of appeal in terms of the provisions contained under Regulation-20 of the 2017 Regulation, plea taken by the petitioner that the proceeding is not covered under the 2017 Regulation is not acceptable. 5.2. It is accordingly contended that the Writ Petition is not maintainable and it is for the petitioner to move the Chairman by filing a Memorial in terms of Regulation-24 of the 2017 Regulation. 6. To the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that since the matter is pending before this Court since 06.12.2021, and if the petitioner is permitted to move a Memorial within a stipulated time period, the same be entertained by condoning the delay and the Memorial be disposed of also within a stipulated time period. 6.1. It is also contended that petitioner be permitted to take all those grounds as available to him against the order of punishment so passed under Annexure-8 confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order under Annexure-10. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, it is found that in Page 4 of 6 // 5 // the proceeding initiated against the petitioner, Opp. Party No.3 being the Disciplinary Authority, passed the final order of punishment vide order dated 16.03.2021 under Annexure-8. The punishment so imposed was in terms of the provisions contained under the 2017 Regulation. 7.1. It is found that after being communicated with the order of punishment, petitioner preferred an appeal before Opp. Party No.2 in terms of the provisions contained under Regulation 20 of the 2017 Regulation. Since petitioner after being communicated with the order of punishment, moved the Appellate Authority in terms of Regulation 20 of the 2017 Regulation, the plea raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is not supposed to make the Memorial in terms of Regulation 24 of the 2017 as petitioner is not covered under the 2017 Regulation, is not acceptable. 7.2. Since petitioner after being imposed with the punishment, availed the remedy of appeal in terms of the provisions contained under Regulation 20 of the 2017 Regulation, this Court is of the view that petitioner has to exhaust the other remedy of filing a Memorial in terms of Regulation 24. 7.3. Since the matter is pending before this Court w.e.f. 06.12.2021, this Court while disposing the Writ Page 5 of 6 // 6 // Petition, grants liberty to the petitioner to move a Memorial in terms of Regulation 24 of the 2017 Regulation before the Chairman of the Corporation- Opp. Party No.1. It is observed that if any such Memorial will be filed within a period of 3 (three) weeks hence, Opp. Party No.1 shall entertain the Memorial without insisting on any delay and decide the issue by giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 7.4. Opp. Party No.1 is directed to dispose of the Memorial in accordance with law and by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 4 (four) months from the date of filing. It is open for the petitioner to take all those grounds that is available to him under law in the memorial which shall be dealt with by the Opp. Party No.1. 8. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. Basudev Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 28-Nov-2025 17:54:30 (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Page 6 of 6