Dismissal from service forfeits pensionary benefits and must comply with principles of natural justice; delayed claims can be barred by laches.

Judgment :

Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.:-

1. The petitioner has sought to assail the action of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as “the Corporation”), whereby his services were terminated and his pensionary claims had been denied.

2. The petitioner asserted to have entered the services of the Corporation upon compassionate appointment in the cadre of Assistant upon the unfortunate demise of his father who was himself in the service of the Corporation. He averred in the ordinary course of his tenure he discharged his duties to the satisfaction of his superiors and by reasons of seniority and merit, he earned promotion to the higher post of Higher Grade Assistant.

3. The petitioner contended during his continuance in service, he was compelled on occasions to absent himself owing to circumstances beyond his control. He had specifically averred his aged and ailing mother required his constant attendance and in the absence of alternative familial support, he was constrained to remain away from duty and such absence was not an act of deliberate indiscipline rather a situational compulsion dictated by humanitarian considerations.

4. The petitioner asserted for a period of absence between 1st October, 2002 to 18th May, 2003, the respondents initiated disciplinary proceedings. Although he explained his inability, the proceedings culminated in the imposition of penalty of reduction in the basic pay by one stage in the time scale of pay with effect from 21st July, 2004. Even after being subjected to such punishment, the petitioner continued to serve faithfully, yet the authorities, harbouring an obdurate view of his service record, was invidious.

5. The petitioner further contended on account of another spell of absence, a fresh charge-sheet was issued to him. He asserted the enquiry which ensued was perfunctory, mechanical and vitiated by lack of adherence to the principles of natural justice. He was denied reasonable opportunity to present his defence or to produce cogent evidence in support of his explanation. However, the Enquiry Officer found the charges proved whereupon the Disciplinary Authority, by Order dated 29th November, 2005, imposed the extreme penalty of h is dismissal from service.

6. The petitioner preferred a departmental appeal against such order of dismissal narrating in detail the extenuating circumstances that occasioned his absence. However, the said appeal came to be rejected on 17th January, 2007 on the ground of the same been filed beyond the statutory period prescribed under Regulations 41, 42 and 43 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. Such rejection on a technical ground without consideration of the substantive merits of the appeal was arbitrary, unjust and contrary to law.

7. The petitioner further contended the denial of pensionary benefits by invoking Rule 23 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employees’) Pension Rules, 1995, was wholly unjustified. He had urged that pension was not a mere ex gratia payment but a vested right accrued by virtue of long years of service rendered to the employer. To deprive him of pension on the ground of dismissal amounted to strip him of his life’s earnings, reducing him to penury in his old age. He submitted Rule 23 insofar as it purported to extinguish pensionary claims upon dismissal deserved to be construed or interpreted in a manner consistent with constituti