PADAM CHAND Vs. L.I.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since above titled both petitions involve common questions of law and fact, they are being decided through this common order.

(2.) The relevant facts, stripped of unnecessary details, as pleaded in Petition No.352/2002, are as follows: The petitioner was initially appointed as a Peon on 18/9/1987 and was later promoted to the position of Assistant on 13/8/1997. A charge sheet dtd. 23/6/1998 (Annex.1) was served upon the petitioner, alleging that an FIR had been lodged against him for gambling and that he had misbehaved with his seniors and colleagues. In response, the petitioner submitted his reply on 15/7/1998 (Annex.2).

(3.) The respondents, inter alia, assert that the petitioner was caught red-handed by the police for gambling and was taken into custody following the lodging of the FIR. Subsequently, a charge sheet was issued after adhering to the due process of law. The Inquiry Officer, after considering the entire record, the petitioner's stance, and the evidence presented, found the petitioner guilty of the charges. The Disciplinary Authority, after reviewing all material, including the petitioner's reply, imposed the impugned punishments. The Appellate Authority upheld the punishments, deeming it appropriate and commensurate with the misconduct. The impugned orders, they thus contend, were passed in accordance with the law and no interference by this court is warranted.