JUDGMENT
M. Katju and D.R. Chaudhary, JJ.
1. Heard Sri V. B. Singh. learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Advocate General.
2. The petitioner is challenging the orders dated 31.12.94 and 30.5.98 (Annexures-VIII and X to the writ petition).
3. The petitioner was a Development Officer in Life insurance Corporation of India. It appears that he was charge-sheeted vide charge-sheet dated 24.12.94, copy of which is Annexure-VI to the writ petition. Show-cause notice along with corrigendum was issued to him and
thereafter, he was dismissed on 31.12.94 vide Annexure-VIII to the writ petition. It is stated that the date of dismissal order was the date of retirement. The petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the appellate authority vide Annexure-X to the writ petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
4. In para 26 of the petition, it is stated that the dismissal order dated 31.12.94 was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In the counter-affidavit, in para 16. It is stated that since the petitioner was due to retire on 31.12.94, the time was very short and it was not reasonably practicable to appoint an Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry. Hence the petitioner was dismissed without holding an enquiry in accordance with Regulation 39 (4) (ii) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960.
5. In our opinion, an enquiry should have been held against the petitioner in which he should have been given an opportunity of hearing. Instead of passing the dismissal order, the authority should have passed a suspension order and thereafter, the said enquiry should have been completed.
6. Regulation 39 (4) (ii) states that where the authority concerned is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that it is not reasonably practicable to follow the procedure prescribed (of holding an enquiry), the disciplinary authority may consider the circumstances of the case and pass such orders as it deems fit.
7. In our opinion, it cannot be said that it was not practicable to hold an enquiry in the present case. The petitioner could have been suspended, and the enquiry held even after he retired.
8. The petitioner has alleged that in view of the dismissal order, he has not been paid any retiral benefits. This certainly affects him adversely, and hence he should have been given a hearing. We dispose of
this writ petition with the direction that since the petitioner’s date of retirement is admittedly the date of dismissal, a post-decisional hearing shall be given to him, and the enquiry shall be completed preferably within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the authority concerned. If the petitioner is exonerated in the enquiry, he shall be paid all the retiral benefits. Our view finds support from the Supreme Court decision in State of Punjab v. Khemi Ram, AIR 1970 SC 214.
