IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P. No. 17542 of 2009
DATE OF DECISION : 16.11.2009
Devinder Kumar Mittal
... PETITIONER
Versus
Life Insurance Corporation of India and others
..... RESPONDENTS
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
Present: Mr. V.K. Gupta, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
***
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J.
The petitioner, who is working as Higher Grade Assistant in the
Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as `the
respondent Corporation’) has filed the instant petition for quashing the order
dated 7.7.2008, whereby in a departmental proceeding, penalty of reduction
in basic pay by one stage permanently in the time scale applicable to the
petitioner has been imposed in terms of Regulation 39 (1) (d) of the LIC of
India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The petitioner has also challenged the order
dated 13.1.2009 (Annexure P-3), passed by the Appellate Authority,
dismissing his appeal, as well as the order dated 3.7.2009 (Annexure P-4),
passed by the Chairman, whereby the Memorandum filed by the petitioner
against the aforesaid orders, has also been rejected.
CWP No. 17542 of 2009 -2-
The petitioner was charge sheeted for disobeying the orders of
the Branch Manager, obstructing the smooth functioning of the office and
having failed to maintain office decorum and discipline. After providing full
opportunity to the petitioner to defend the charges by leading evidence and
considering the material placed on record, the Enquiry Officer found the
petitioner guilty of the charges. The disciplinary authority, after considering
the reply given by the petitioner to the show cause notice, passed the order
of impugned penalty of reduction in basic pay by one stage permanently in
the time scale applicable to the petitioner. The appellate authority affirmed
the order of penalty, after considering all the contentions raised by the
petitioner. The Memorandum filed by the petitioner has also been rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the disciplinary
authority as well as the appellate authority have not properly appreciated the
evidence. There are contradictions in the statements of the witnesses
regarding the time of the alleged incident. It has been argued that the
question of refusal of the petitioner to sit at the cash counter does not arise,
as already two officers were working on the cash counter and there was no
need to issue office order to the petitioner to work on the said counter. It has
been argued that the petitioner was illegally punished by the Branch
Manager without any fault on his part.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and going
through the aforesaid orders, I do not find any ground to interfere in the
impugned orders, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The
CWP No. 17542 of 2009 -3-
Enquiry Officer, after appreciating the evidence led before him by the
department as well as the petitioner, has recorded a finding of fact about the
alleged mis-conduct. It has been proved that the petitioner has disobeyed the
order of the Branch Manager and shouted in the branch and created
indiscipline. In my opinion, when the order of penalty has been upheld by
the Appellate Authority and the Chairman of the respondent Corporation,
the evidence led before the Enquiry Officer cannot be re-appreciated, and a
different finding cannot be recorded. It is also not the case of
disproportionate punishment, particularly keeping in view the nature of
allegations. Thus, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned
order.
No merit.
Dismissed.
November 16, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE