SANKARSAN SWAIN Vs. SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was initially working on daily wage basis since 1986 under Cuttack Divisional Office of Life Insurance Corporation of India, was appointed on 03.05.1989 as a AFR Sub-staff on regular basis after undergoing due process of selection. On 04.04.1990, he was called upon by opposite party no.1 to submit explanation to the effect that the educational certificate submitted by him was not genuine. Pursuant thereto, on 28.05.1990, the petitioner filed duplicate copy of the educational certificate along with his reply. Then on 01.06.1990, the petitioner was served with a memorandum of charges that he failed to maintain the absolute integrity and acted in a manner prejudicial to good conduct detrimental to the interest of the Corporation and thereby violated the provisions of Regulations 21 and 39(1) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 (for short "Regulations, 1960"), for which one or more penalties in terms of Regulation 39(1)(a) to (g) of the Regulations, 1960 may be imposed on him. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner, on being called upon, submitted his explanation on 12.07.1990 denying the charges. But the authority, having not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, appointed inquiry officer on 16.08.1990.

(2.) The inquiry officer proceeded with the enquiry and on its completion submitted his report on 25.06.199 On receipt of the same, the disciplinary authority, on 27.07.1993, issued second show cause notice to the petitioner indicating the punishment to be imposed. In response thereto, on 13.09.1993, the petitioner filed his reply stating therein that since enquiry was conducted in utter violation of the principles of natural justice, he was liable to be exonerated from the charges levelled against him, and that penalty of removal from service was not called for. But, the disciplinary authority, by order dated 07.11994, in exercise of powers conferred upon him under Regulation 39(1) (a) of the Regulations, 1960 read with Schedule-1 thereof imposed the penalty of removal from service, as proposed in the show cause notice dated 27.07.1993, with effect from the date of order.

(3.) Challenging the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal before opposite party no.2 on 10.02.1994. But, the appellate authority, by order dated 09.05.1994, in exercise of powers under Regulation 46(2) of the Regulations, 1960 rejected the appeal and confirmed the order of removal from service passed by the disciplinary authority. As against the said order, the petitioner approached this Court by filing OJC No. 2272 of 1995, which was disposed of by order dated 04.01.2008 with the direction that if the petitioner made an application before the appellate authority-opposite party no.2 drawing his attention with regard to irregularity committed, the appellate authority would reconsider the case and pass necessary order on the same in accordance with law. It was further clarified in the said order that the order passed by the appellate authority on 09.05.1994 would not stand on the way to pass any order on the application of the petitioner and if required, the appellate authority might modify his own order.