SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1995 Supreme(AP) 386

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.SUDERSHAN REDDY
P.P.John - Appellant
Versus
Zonal Manager, South central Zone, LIC of India, Saifabad hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 07-26-95

Headnote:

B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J. ( 1 ) ORDER: The order passed by the 2nd respondent herein on 22-12-1986 as confirmed by the 1st respondent through orders dated 21-1-1991 removing the petitioner from service of the Life Insurance corporation of India is impugned in this writ petition The order is challenged on various grounds. The petitioner prays for a writ of Certeorari to quash the impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority. The order is mainly questioned as being ultra vires and unconstitutional and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed by articles 14, 21, 25 and also violative of articles 39 and 41 of the Constitution of india.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was appointed as office Assistant in the year, 1963 in the life Insurance Corporation of India and subsequently promoted as Section Head in the year, 1980. Thereafter, he was promoted as Higher Grade Assistant in the year, 1981 which post he was holding until the impugned order of removal is passed by the respondents.

Finding of the Court:

The impugned order dated 22-12-1986 passed by the 2nd respondent as confirmed by the 1st respondent on 21-1-1991 to the extent as indicated is liable to be declared as illegal and accordingly, the same is declared as illegal. Consequently, I hold that the petitioner is entitled for the salary from 17-7-1985 to 22-12-1986 as if he was in service. Accordingly, there shall be direction to the respondents to pay salary and other emoluments payable to the petitioner during the period from 17-7-1985 to 22-12-1986.

Issues: Whether the impugned order makes any serious inroad and violates the petitioner s fundamental right to freedom of religion and religious practice.

Ratio Decidendi: The impugned order does not intrude or violate the guranteed fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 25 of the Constitution of india. There is no basis whatsoever to contend that the impugned order violates the right of equality as enshrined in Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Final Decision: The writ petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) ORDER: The order passed by the 2nd respondent herein on 22-12-1986 as confirmed by the 1st respondent through orders dated 21-1-1991 removing the petitioner from service of the Life Insurance corporation of India is impugned in this writ petition The order is challenged on various grounds. The petitioner prays for a writ of Certeorari to quash the impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority. The order is mainly questioned as being ultra vires and unconstitutional and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed by articles 14, 21, 25 and also violative of articles 39 and 41 of the Constitution of india. FACTUAL MATRIX:

( 2 ) THE petitioner was appointed as office Assistant in the year, 1963 in the life Insurance Corporation of India and subsequently promoted as Section Head in the year, 1980. Thereafter, he was promoted as Higher Grade Assistant in the year, 1981 which post he was holding until the impugned order of removal is passed by the respondents.

( 3 ) THE petitioner claims to be a member of the World Wide Church of god. One of the essential religious doctrines of this religious sect, according to the petitioner, is that Saturday should be observed as sabbath day and the member of this Sect or the religious denomination should not work for livelihood on sabbath day. The petitioner was applying leave on Saturdays since 1981 and the authorities were granting leave during 1981 whenever the petitioner was applying for leave. Thereafter also, the petitioner was making applications for grant of leave on every Saturday with an undertaking that he will work on Sundays or work in extra hours on other days. According to the petitioner, the authorities who were earlier accommodating him to observe sabbath day, declined to show that accommodation and initiated disciplinary proceedings.

( 4 ) THE respondents, by, their proceedings dated 28-3-1984 issued a charge sheet to the petitioner charging as under:"that you had been absenting yourself from your duties on Saturdays continually since 13-11-1982 for religious purpose without having obtained the permission of the competent authority:------------- that by your above referred acts, you have committed breach of regulations 21, 30 (1) of the Life insurance Corporation of India (Staff) regulations, 1960 (Staff Rules) and acted in a manner highly prejudicial to good conduct for which any one or more of the penalties specified under regulation 39 of the Life Insurance corporation of India (Staff) regulations, 1960 can be imposed upon you. "the petitioner was asked to submit his written statement if any within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said charge sheet. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 18-5-1984 and the respondents, having found that the explanation was not satisfactory, an enquiry was ordered into the charges. The Enquiry Officer, after making enquiry, submitted his report on 6-11-1984 holding the petitioner guilty of the charges mentioned in the chargesheet the Disciplinary Authority, having accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer, issued show cause notice dated 8-4-1985 asking the petitioner to show cause as to why the punishment of removal from service should not be imposed upon the petitioner under Regulation 39 (1) (f) of the life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) regulations, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the regulations ). The petitioner appears to have made representations on 3-5-1985, 10-6-1985, 9-7-1985 requesting for time to submitt his explanation on the ground that he wanted to consult and take legal advice regarding the applicability of article 25 of the Constitution of India in the matter. The time was finally extended up to 10-7-1985 for submission of the explanation. No explanation as such was filed by the petitioner and consequently, the disciplinary authority passed an order dated 17-7-1985 removing the petitioner from service of the Life Insurance cor


















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top