SHARDA PRASAD SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against an order passed by the Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Gorakhpur dtd. 10/6/2021, removing the petitioner from service, after disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner also impugns the order dtd. 31/1/2023 passed by the Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Kanpur, rejecting the petitioner's appeal and affirming the order of removal. The petitioner further questions an order dtd. 20/6/2023 passed by the Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Central Office, Mumbai, rejecting the petitioner's memorial and affirming the orders of the two Authorities below.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a Development Officer by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short, 'the LIC') on 16/5/2012. He was posted with the Satellite Office, Jiyanpur, District Azamgarh. The petitioner's conditions of service are governed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 (for short, 'the Regulations of 1960'). The petitioner says that as a Development Officer with the Satellite Office, Jiyanpur, he had a good service record. It is his case that trouble for him began when he questioned his superiors about non-provision of the muster roll to mark his daily attendance. This did not go well with them. He was served with a show cause notice dtd. 29/5/2020 issued by the Senior Divisional Manager, seeking his explanation about certain matters, the most important of these being his unauthorized absence from office for a period of 445 days from 2/1/2019 to 31/3/2020. There was also an allegation about the petitioner's intermittent absence for a period of 50 days during the period October, 2018 to December, 2018, without information or prior approval of leave.

(3.) The petitioner, upon receipt of the show cause notice, addressed a letter dtd. 18/6/2020 to the Senior Divisional Manager (the Disciplinary Authority), wherein, he took stand that allegations about the period of time, that had been mentioned in the show cause notice, indicating his continuous and intermittent absence, was ill-founded, for reason that during the period in question, he had regularly attended the Satellite Office of the LIC, including meetings, that were presided over by the Disciplinary Authority. Ignoring the petitioner's explanation, the Disciplinary Authority initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner primarily on charges of unauthorized absence. A charge-sheet dtd. 19/9/2020 was issued by the Disciplinary Authority, carrying seven charges. The charges, carried in the charge-sheet dtd. 19/9/2020, read: <IMG>JUDGEMENT_140_LAWS(ALL)4_2025_1.JPG</IMG>