ANIL CHANDRA PRADHAN Vs. L I C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING called upon to decide whether livelihood of the petitioner was taken away in accordance with the procedure just, fair and reasonable, which is the command of Article 21 of the Constitution, and having known that the petitioner, after he was dismissed from service had to undergo actual hardship so much so that even to approach this Court after his review petition was rejected in 1983, it took him about six years due to ill health combined with bad financial position, we have considered the case from the high pedestal from which a writ Court, being called upon to protect the fundamental right of a citizen of India, does. When a writ Court, to whom justice is dear of all things, is confronted with such a situation, technicalities are not allowed to impede the path of social justice; indeed in exercise of our power under Article 226 technicalities have no scope. It is the justice of the case which motivates a writ Court to exercise its power. Let us see whether any injustice had been done to the petitioner and what dent was caused to Articles 14 and 21, The word 'life' in Article 21 takes care of livelihood after the Constitution Bench decision in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, A. I. R. 1986 S. C. 180; and natural justice has been accepted as a part of Article 14 of the Constitution, because of what has been said in Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, 1985-II-LLJ-206 and Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, AIR 1990 S. C. 1480. Let us see whether the two parts of the golden triangle of the fundamental rights which consist of Articles 14, 19 and 21 stood violated in the present case.

(2.) THE petitioner was a Development Officer under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (shortly called 'the L. I. C. '.) and the charge is that he misappropriated a sum of Rs. 509. 38 after having received a cheque meant for one B. Jhunjhunwala, who was an agent of the L. I. C.-the money being a part of the agent's commission which had accrued to B. Jhunjhunwala. L. I. C. 's case is that after this money was received by the petitioner, he forged the signature of B. Jhunjhunwala and deposited the cheque with Biraja Cycle Stores which was enchased on June 20, 1962, and the proceeds were handed over to the petitioner on June 21, 1962. As, however, B. Jhunjhunwala made a complaint (and there are 2-3 such complaints on record) that he had not received the money in question, an enquiry was made and it was found that it was the petitioner who had misappropriated the same. Petitioner's case on the other hand was that he had handed over the amount to a brother of B. Jhunjhunwala-he being one M. Jhunjhunwala-as the former was not available in the town. On the charge being so explained, an enquiry followed and in the enquiry the officer went to the residence of M. Jhunjhunwala to examine him whereupon he denied having received any money from the petitioner. This evidence of M. Jhunjhunwala along with other materials on record was relied upon by the Enquiring Officer to find the petitioner guilty of the charge which led to his dismissal from service by an order passed by the Zonal Manager on January 10, 1964.

(3.) THE petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed on October 11, 1965 whereupon O. J. C. No. 189 of 1966 was preferred which was dismissed as withdrawn. A review application came to be preferred afterwards in 1970 which was rejected on August 31, 1972, on the ground of delay. The petitioner filed a title suit in the Court of the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuttack, (the suit having been numbered as 150 of 1975) seeking a declaration that the rejection of the review application was illegal. The suit was decreed on February 8, 1980 and the defendant was directed to consider the case on merit. The L. I. C. brought the matter in appeal to this Court which was the subject matter of First Appeal No. 211 of 1980. That appeal was, however, not pressed and the L. I. C. agreed to abide by the decree of the Civil Court. This was on January 19, 1981. The review application ultimately came to be rejected by a reasoned order on April 4, 1983 which was communicated to the petitioner on April 28, 1983. Thereafter this petition was filed on April 21, 1989.