Disciplinary authority's discretion must be respected; altering punishment based solely on length of service without proper reasoning is improper.

JUDGMENT :

A.S. Supehia, J.

1. ADMIT. Learned advocate Mr.I.G.Joshi waives service of notice of admission on behalf of the respondent.

2. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.I.G.Joshi appearing for the respondent-employee in Letters Patent Appeal No.167 of 2025 and the appellant of Letters Patent Appeal No.168 of 2025 has urged that since the Court is inclined to remand the matter to learned Single Judge, appropriate time may be fixed for the disposal of the writ petition, as the employee is suffering from cancer and is 75 years old. It is submitted that the employee was constrained to file the present Letters Patent Appeal since the respondent i.e. Life Insurance Corporation of India has assailed the order passed by learned Single Judge by filing the captioned Letters Patent Appeal No.167 of 2025. Thus, we have taken the Letters Patent Appeal No.167 of 2025 as a lead matter.

3. Learned advocate Mr.Yogi K. Gadhia appearing for the appellant-Corporation has submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge is required to be quashed and set aside as the learned Single Judge has neither dealt with the findings of the departmental proceedings nor that of the Tribunal, i.e. the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (‘CGIT’ in short). It is submitted that the findings of the disciplinary authority and the order of the Tribunal is set aside only on the ground of length in service. It is submitted that there was serious charges of misconduct on the employee, which was proved in the departmental inquiry, and also upheld by the Tribunal.

4. There is also a prior history of remand of the departmental proceedings which we are not finding it necessary to incorporate in our order as we are remanding the matter to learned Single Judge since the order passed by learned Single Judge is bereft of reasoning and the punishment orders and the order passed by the Tribunal are set aside only by assigning the reason that the employee has completed 25 years of service. Learned Single Judge has altered the punishment of recovery of the amount and removal of service to that of granting Rs.7,50,000/- towards lump sum compensation as full and final settlement.

5. The brief facts which are established from the record are that the respondent was the employee of the appellant-Corporation and was serving as a Record clerk and was suspended from services in view of the contemplation of departmental proceedings. There were two charge-sheets issued to him on 13.09.1987 and ultimately, the same culminated into imposition of punishment on the respondent employee. The punishments, which were imposed by the Corporation in the first departmental inquiry, were - (i) reduction of basic pay to the minimum and order of recovery; and (ii) in the second departmental inquiry, he was removed from service. These punishments are imposed in view of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 , more particularly Regulation 39(1)(c) thereof, which refers to recovery from pay and Regulation 39(1)(f), which refers to removal from service.

6. The respondent-employee assailed the aforesaid order of punishment by filing Reference ITC No.94 of 1998 (Old) / Reference CGITA No.117 of 2004 (New). By a comprehensive award dated 07.06.2011, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad passed the following order :-

“(23) In view of the findings given in the fore goings, the following award is passed. The action of the Management of LIC of India imposing the penalty of reduction of basic pay to the minimum and order of recovery of Rs.23261.10/- under Regulation 39(1)(c) and (d) of the LIC of India Staff Regulation 1960 vide punishment order dated 22.11.1987 and the imposition of penalty of removal from the services vide punishmen