1. The petitioner is an employee of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (“LIC” for short). He has been punished in the departmental proceedings. The penalty imposed on him is reduction in basic pay by four stages and recovery of loss by Rs.50,637.18. On same set of allegations, a criminal case was also registered against him. He was convicted by the criminal court. The disciplinary authority further imposed a punishment of removal from service consequent upon conviction in criminal case. The petitioner challenges imposition of penalty of removal from service. According to him, an employee cannot be penalised twice on the same cause of action or on the same set of facts.

2. The petitioner approached this court when he was served with a show cause notice proposing imposition of penalty of removal from service. This writ petition is pending from the year 2014 onwards. Along with I.A.No.5980/2017 filed by the third respondent, the final order of imposition of penalty has been produced. This order is dated 12.7.2014. Though, there is no challenge against the final order by way of an amendment of the writ petition, nevertheless, the petitioner having challenged the show-cause notice, the failure to challenge the final order does not assume much importance in this case as he challenges the very authority of imposing such punishment proposed in the show cause notice. The case of the petitioner is that an employee cannot be punished twice on the same cause of action.

3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that the employer had the option to wait till the outcome of the criminal case to impose penalty in departmental proceedings. Having not exercised such option and having chosen to impose penalty initially in departmental proceedings without awaiting the outcome in the criminal case, the employer is estopped from imposing penalty for the second time. It is also argued that such action of the employer is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. He also relied on the following judgments:

(i). Ranganathan v. Assistant Commandant, C.I.S.F. Unit [2015 (2) KLT 429]

(ii). Nand Kumar Verma v. State of Jharkhand and Others [(2012) 3 SCC 580]

(iii). Union of India and Another v. Tulsiram Patel [(1985) 3 SCC 398].

4. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the LIC, after adverting to the Regulation 39(4) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the “Regulations”), argued that when power is conferred on LIC to impose such punishment, it is within the competence of the LIC to impose second punishment based on the conviction on criminal charges. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of Haryana v. Balwant Singh [(2003) 3 SCC 362] in support of the said argument.

5. The second penalty imposed on the petitioner is relying upon Regulation 39(4) of the Staff Regulations. It is appropriate to refer relevant Regulation, which reads as follows:

“Penalties:

39.(1)Without prejudice to the provisions of other regulations, [any one or more of]* the following penalties for good and sufficient reasons, and as hereinafter provided, be imposed [by the disciplinary authority specified in Schedule-I]* on an employee who commits breach of regulations of the Corporation, or who display negligence, inefficiency or indolence or who knowingly does anything detrimental to the interest of the Corporation, or conflicting with the instructions or who commits a breach of discipline, or is guilty of any other act prejudicial to good conduct—

(a) Censure;

*(b) Withholding of one or more increments either permanently or for a specified period;

(c) recovery from pay or such other amount as may be due to him of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation by negligence or breach of order;

(d) reduction to a lower service, or post, or to a lower time scale, or to a lower stage in a time-scale;

(e) compulsory retirement;

(f) removal fr