Heard Mr. D. Rajagopal, learned counsel representing Mr.A.Thirumurthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Silambanan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.N.Umapathy, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.

2. The writ petition is filed against the order of the first respondent dated 14. 2005 and the consequential order passed by the second respondent dated 25. 2005 confirming the earlier order and after setting aside the same to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service.

3. The petitioner was working as a Development Officer in the respondent Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short LIC). He had put in 23 years of service in total. Initially, he worked as a LIC Agent for six years and thereafter as a Development Officer for 17 years. He claims to have conducted business as Development Officer for more than Rs.100 crores.

4. The petitioner sent a letter dated 13. 2004 to the Union of India through proper channel seeking permission to contest the Lok Sabha elections held during 2004 and he also sought for 30 days Privilege Leave. Further, by a letter dated 14. 2004, he informed the first respondent about the impending elections and his having submitted nomination for contesting elections from Tindivanam Constituency. By a letter dated 20.4.2004, the petitioner was informed by the first respondent that his request was not considered by a communication dated 14. 2004 received from the Central Office.

5. The petitioner sent a further reply dated 24. 2004 stating that he has completed his norms as an employee of the LIC and standing in the election is purely his personal affair for which the respondent cannot have any say in the matter. However, charges were framed and he was issued with a charge memo dated 24. 2004. The charges indicated that the petitioners filing nomination for contesting the general election from Tindivanam Lok Sabha Constituency on 14. 2004 without permission by the competent authority was wrong and he has disregarded the directives given by the appointing authority and his writing a letter to the Ministry casting aspersions on the LIC is also objectionable.

6. Subsequently, an enquiry was ordered to be conducted by the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry was said to have been held on 16. 2004, in which the petitioners statement was recorded. The petitioner had admitted that he had filed nomination on 14. 2004 but subsequently he withdrew his nomination on 24. 2004 at 3.10 p.m. and he had attended office on 05. 2004 after cancelling his leave. Since the charges levelled against the petitioner were not specifically denied, the Enquiry Officer by his report dated 010. 2004 foundthe petitioner guilty of the charges. After getting an explanation from the petitioner, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner dated 09. 2004 stating that the first respondent had agreed with the Enquiry Report and since the petitioner was guilty of the misconduct in terms of Regulation 39 of the LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 (for short Regulations), it was proposed to remove the petitioner from service. The petitioner sent a further reply dated 010. 2004.

7. In his reply, he had stated that Regulation 25(4) permitting an employee to contest election to a local body with permission was alone provided and, therefore, not providing for contesting other elections is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. He also sent a further reply dated 14. 2005 requesting them not to impose any punishment. However, by an order dated 14. 2005, the first respondent removed the petitioner from service. It was also indicated that the petitioners past record and antecedents show that he was a permanent menace to the peace and order in the office. But the first respondent did not put the past record on notice to the petitioner, but nevertheless relied upon the same.

8. Before listing out the past misconduct, the first respondent had observed as follows:-

And Whereas, re