L.I.C. OF INDIA Vs. HANS RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SERVICE career of Hans Raj Arya (hereinafter referred to as 'Plaintiff') ran into rough weather in the very initial years when he came to be employed as Development Officer with the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to 'as Appellant') and the litigation that ensured has consumed all the years for which he would have served as it appears, he must have, either reached the age of superannuation or may be very close to the same.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case reveal that the Plaintiff was removed from service, -vide order dated 3rd December, 1964. Constrained he raked up the issue by styling his removal from service as wholly illegal before the Civil Court wherein he filed suit for declaration to the effect that the order aforesaid passed by the Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, was illegal and so was the order rendered in appeal preferred by him against the order of his dismissal. He succeeded in obtaining a decree of declaration to the effect that his removal from service from the Appellant Corporation was wrongful and that the impugned orders dated 3rd December, 1964 and 8th June, 1965 were unsustainable. In Consequence of the findings, referred to above, the Plaintiff was, however, not ordered to be reinstated in service and instead was held entitled to a decree for damages to the tune of Rs. 2,000 on account of difference in his earnings between the period of his wrongful removal and the institution of the suit with proportionate costs. His claim for future damages was, however, rejected. Constrained, whereas the Plaintiff filed Regular First Appeal bearing No. 1910 of 1978, the Appellant -Corporation filed Cross Objections bearing No. 225/Clause of 1979. Obviously whereas, the Plaintiff in the appeal aforesaid prayed that he should have been ordered to be reinstated with all consequential benefits, the Appellant -Corporation challenged the grant of damages as well to the Plaintiff. Both, the appeal as also the cross objections, were decided by a common judgment dated 15th March, 1991. Appeal preferred by the Plaintiff against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court dated 30th October, 1973 was set aside, thus ordering the Plaintiff to be reinstated in service and deemed to be in continuous service till his superannuation as also emoluments, which were to be determined keeping in view the fact if the Plaintiff was in gainful employment during the period, he was removed from service, cross objections preferred by the Appellant were dismissed. It is this judgment of the learned Single Judge emanating from the decree of the Civil Court that has since been challenged in this appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent. Brief facts culminating into filing of the suit by the Plaintiff with the result already indicated above reveal that the Plaintiff was employed as Development Officer in the Branch Office of the Appellant at Abohar. In view of the provisions contained in Rule 19(2) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation. 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 1960 Regulation"), the Plaintiff was entitled to continue in service till he completes the age of 58 years with all increments, gratuity and provident fund. In the year 1961, Municipal elections were held at Abohar. The date of filing of nomination papers was upto 20th August, 1961 and the elections were held on 24th September, 1961. The Plaintiff sought permission to contest the election from the Chairman of the Appellant -Corporation, -vide his application dated 20th August, 1961. The Branch Office, Abohar, -vide letter dated 31st August, 1961, informed the Plaintiff that his application has been forwarded to the Divisional Manager, Jalandhar, for consideration. However, -vide communication dated 5th December, 1963, he was called upon by the Senior Divisional Manager, 4th Respondent so arrayed in the memo of parties before the Civil Court, to submit his explanation within 15 days as to why he has contested the election and as to how he has accepted the office of Senior Vice -President in the Municipal Corporation. The Plaintiff submitted his explanation on 21st December, 1963, which was not found satisfactory, thus, resulting in charge sheeting the Plaintiff, -vide order dated 16th March, 1964. The charges as spelled out from Ex. P -6, dated 16th March, 1964, read thus:

(3.) IN the last but one of the paragraphs of the charge -sheet, it has been mentioned that if the Plaintiff may desire to cite any witnesses (in which case, their names, designation and addresses should be furnished indicating the nature of their evidence which he intended to prove or disprove the case) he would be permitted to produce the witness or witnesses at his own cost. The Plaintiff submitted a reply to the charge -sheet, -vide his letter dated 30th March, 1964 wherein, inter alia, he stated that he was elected as Member of the local Municipal Committee three years ago and explanation was submitted to the local branch office, -vide his letter dated 7th January, 1962. For all intent and purposes, the matter was closed but, it appears issue was again raked up purely motivated by extraneous considerations. He made a reference of recent judgment of this Court rendered on 11th November, 1960 in Bishan Dass v. W.L. Bhambari and explained that there was nothing to warrant any punishment since he had sought permission well before the election as in view of the judgment, mentioned above and further that there was nothing to debar the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation development staff from remaining employees of the Municipal Committee and remaining employees of Life Insurance Corporation of India as well. He further stated that there were precedents of which the department was fully aware that Field Officers were the Members of the Municipal Committee elsewhere. He named S/Sh. Walaiti Ram Bhambari and, Madan Lal Mahendru of Pathankot in that connection. With regard to his election as Senior Vice -President, Abohar Municipal Committee, he stated that under by no stretch of imagination this election could be held as an office of profit and further that the term of such election is only one year. There was no adverse effect of his election to the local Municipal Committee on his work in the Appellant Corporation. On the contrary, the Appellant -Corporation should feel pride that one of its workers enjoys such a measure of confidence of people and is their elected representative. He further stated that he was the only Harijan Field Officer in the entire organisation of the Appellant in Jalandhar Division and he should be permitted to continue earning a living and doing his humble bit in the sphere of social service to his community. He further stated on solemn assurance that under no circumstance, he would let Life Insurance Corporation's work suffer on account of bis association with the Municipal Committee. It appears from the records of the case and such are also the finding recorded by the learned trial Judge and learned Single Judge that without recording any evidence on its behalf and for that matter permitting the Plaintiff to lead evidence in defence, a show cause notice dated 14th September, 1964 was issued to the Plaintiff proposing his removal from service, which, however, was not to be a disqualification for future employment. He was asked to submit his explanation within 10 days from the date of receipt of the show cause notice aforesaid, failing which it was to be presumed that he had no explanation to offer. The Plaintiff responded to the show cause notice aforesaid, -vide letter dated 29th September, 1964 pleading therein that the only competent authority to grant permission to him to contest the election was the Chairman of the Corporation. His request was never declined by the competent authority and he had reasons to believe that action taken against him was under the influence of his opponents to desist him from contesting election. He further stated that rejection of his application by the Chairman, if any, was never communicated to him and that he had submitted his application for permission in time on 20th August, 1961. Even the Divisional Office did not object to his contesting election, as he never received any letter prior to 12th December, 1963, when he had since been elected as Senior Vice -President. He believed that show cause notice was issued to him on account of influence of his opponents, exerted on authorities. He also stated that he was being discriminated and in fact being a Harijan he should have received better treatment. On the contrary, the Appellant had given sanction to S/Sh. Walaiti Ram Bhambri, Madan Lal Mahendru of Pathankot and Sh. S.R. Sehgal, Field Officer, Moga Sub -Office, to contest the election and he was being deprived of even equivalent treatment on account of high approach and influence of his opponents. He further stated that Sh. S.R. Sehgal not only remained a Member of the Moga Municipal Committee but also acted as President for a term. He attached a copy of permission granted in the case of Sh. S.R. Sehgal. In the end, he prayed for formal hearing in the matter by the punishing Authority.