Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
V.Sivakumar – Appellant
Versus
Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner removed from service under lic regulations. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner argues delay and mitigating circumstances. (Para 4 , 7 , 9 , 10 , 15) |
| 3. court finds punishment disproportionate to misconduct. (Para 11 , 16 , 18 , 20 , 32) |
| 4. supreme court's stance on misconduct and proportionality. (Para 26 , 27 , 31) |
| 5. removal from service substituted with lesser penalty. (Para 33) |
ORDER :
Hemant Chandangoudar, J.
This writ petition challenges the order dated 31.10.2014 passed by the third respondent, whereby the petitioner was removed from service in exercise of the powers conferred under Regulation 39 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 .
2. The petitioner states that the third respondent, acting under Regulation 39(1)(f) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 , issued an order dated 31.03.2015 removing the petitioner from service. The said order of removal was subsequently confirmed by the first respondent by order dated 09.01.2016.
3. While serving as an Assistant, the petitioner was issued a charge memo dated 02.01.2014. The charge memo alleged that during his tenure as a Cashier at the Udumalpet B
The principle of proportionality in disciplinary actions requires penalties to align with the severity of misconduct, particularly when mitigating circumstances and lack of prior incidents exist.
The disciplinary authority's decision to remove the employee for financial misconduct was upheld, as the inquiry followed due process and the employee admitted to significant charges.
The principles of procedural fairness and proper execution of disciplinary actions were upheld, clarifying that reinstatement should not constitute a break in service and detailing compensatory consi....
The main legal point established in the given judgment is the interpretation of the order passed by the first respondent as one of reinstatement of the petitioner, rather than a fresh or re-engagemen....
The court emphasized that disciplinary actions must obey principles of natural justice, including evidence for charges and payment of subsistence allowance during suspension; non-compliance voids san....
The principle of parity in punishment mandates equal treatment for co-delinquents involved in the same misconduct, and failure to consider a response to a show cause notice invalidates disciplinary a....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
