S.L. GUPTA Vs. LIC AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by this writ petition is seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him under, the charge-sheet dated 21.8.1990 (Annexure 1). The petitioner has also assailed the validity and propriety of the report of Inquiring Authority dated 14.6.1993, a notice to show-cause pertaining to the proposed punishment dated 30.8.1993 and the order dated 16.11.1993 whereby a punishment of removal was imposed upon the petitioner by the disciplinary authority i.e. the Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Jaipur. A penalty of removal was imposed upon the petitioner while exercising the powers under Regulations 39(i) of the Life Insurance Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1960 (hereinafter referred as the Regulations of 1960).

(2.) While holding the post of Development Officer in the Life Insurance Corporation (Hereinafter to be referred as the LIC) the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 21.8.1990 alleging the breach of regulations 21 and 24 read with Regulation 39(i) of the Regulations of 1960. The petitioner by the charge-sheet dated 21.8.1990 was charged for four allegations. The petitioner after receiving the charge-sheet, under communication dated 10.10.1990 and 28.2.1991 made request to the disciplinary authority to supply copies of certain documents to file an effective explanation to the charges levelled against him. According to the petitioner, neither he was supplied with the documents demanded nor he was permitted to inspect the same. The disciplinary authority by the order dated 27.4.1991 appointed an Inquiry Officer to adjudicate the charges levelled against the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer commenced the inquiry on 11.12.1991.

(3.) On 3.8.1992 the Presenting Officer submitted 16 documents sought to be relied by the LIC to substantiate the charges levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner on 3.11.1992 denied the allegations levelled against him. Therefore, the Inquiry Officer instructed the Presenting Officer to put forth his points pertaining to the documents placed on record on 2.8.1992. The petitioner admitted the documents produced by the Presenting Officer however, request was made by him to instruct the Presenting Officer to produce copies of 12 documents which according to him were essential to prove his innocence. According to the petitioner copies of some of the documents were supplied to him but most of the documents were not given to him by the Presenting Officer. The petitioner as well as the Presenting Officer submitted written arguments to the Inquiry Officer on 14.6.1993 and 20.5.1993 respectively.