Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 9412
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA – Appellant
Versus
SRI. MAREPPA S/O YAMUNAPPA HIPPARAGI – Respondent
WA 100247 / 2023
Significant delays in disciplinary proceedings without adequate justification violate principles of natural justice, impacting the fairness of inquiries.
Headnote:(A) Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 - Section 4 - Disciplinary proceedings - Delay in issuing charge sheet - The court held that significant delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings, without adequate explanation, prejudices the delinquent's ability to defend himself. The necessity of following principles of natural justice in departmental inquiries was emphasized. (Paras 16, 17, 26)
(B) Admission of Guilt - It was determined that contradictory statements made by the delinquent did not constitute unequivocal admission of guilt, necessitating a proper inquiry process. (Paras 18, 20, 22)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an Assistant Administrative Officer, faced charges of causing financial loss to the LIC due to delayed disciplinary proceedings initiated years after the alleged misconduct. The learned Single Judge set aside the removal penalty, citing procedural delays and lack of fair opportunity.
Findings of Court:
The court affirmed the Single Judge's decision, noting the absence of timely inquiry and the necessity for a fair hearing in disciplinary actions.
Issues: The main issue was whether the learned Single Judge's interference with the penalty was justified, particularly concerning the delay in issuing the charge sheet.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that delays in disciplinary proceedings must be justified; otherwise, they infringe upon the principles of natural justice, impacting the fairness of the inquiry process.
Result: Both writ appeals dismissed.
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT)
The above appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 is directed against the learned Single Judge’s order dated 06.02.2023 in W.P.No.104045/2016 wherein the petitioner’s writ petition is allowed setting aside the Appellate Order dated 11.03.2016 confirming the penalty of removal from service under order dated 25.04.2015.
2. The parties would be referred to as per their ranking before the learned Single Judge. Appellants herein were respondents and respondent herein was petitioner before the learned Single Judge.
3. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was working as Assistant Administrative Officer and while he was working as such at Satellite Office at Yellapura, Dharwad Division, articles of charge dated 29.01.2014 (Annexure-A) was issued alleging wrong payments which caused financial loss to the respondents/Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC). The petitioner submitted reply in terms of the reply dated 19.02.2014 (Annexure-B). Not being satisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondents/LIC appointed Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer commenced his enquiry by conducting proceedings on 09.05.2014 and 14.05.2014. The Enquiry Officer submitted report dated 20.05.2014 stating that the delinquent official/petitioner has admitted the charge unconditionally. However, under Annexure-E dated 23.06.2014 directed to conduct, de-novo enquiry in respect of the charges contained in the charge sheet dated 29.01.2014 observing that the petitioner during the course of enquiry has not categorically admitted the charges leveled against him. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer stated to have conducted the enquiry and submitted report dated 07.09.2014 (Annexure-G) holding that in the proceedings held on 29.01.2014 the delinquent official unconditionally accepted the charges. The Disciplinary Authority issued second show cause notice dated 12.03.2015, proposing to impose penalty of removal from service in terms of Regulation 39(1)(f) of the LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 (for short, ‘1960 Regulations’). The petitioner submitted his reply dated 30.03.2015 to the second show cause notice. The Disciplinary Authority under impugned order dated 25.04.2015 (Annexure-J) imposed punishment of removal from service in terms of Regulation 39(1)(f) of 1960 Regulations.
4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed appeal and the Appellate Authority under Annexure-L, order dated 11.03.2016 dismissed the appeal confirming the order of removal from service.
5. Questioning the order of penalty of removal from service as well as the Appellate Order, the petitioner was before the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.104045/2016. Learned Single Judge on hearing both the parties under impugned order, allowed the writ petition and set aside the order with a direction to the respondents/LIC to reinstate the petitioner with 50% of back wages.
6. Against the order of learned Single Judge the respondents/LIC are in appeal in W.A.No.100247/2023 questioning the entire order whereas the petitioner is in appeal in W.A.No.100353/2023 to the extent of granting only 50% back wages, praying for full back wages.
7. Heard the learned senior counsel Sri.Vigneshwar Shastri for Sri.Narayan V. Yaji, learned counsel for the appellants/LIC and learned counsel Sri.Anant P. Savadi for respondent/petitioner. Perused the entire writ appeal papers.
8. Learned senior counsel for the appellants/LIC would contend that the learned Single Judge committed grave error in allowing the writ petition by setting aside the penalty of removal from service as well as Appellate Authority order only on the question of delay in issuing the charge sheet to the delinquent employee. He submitted that the incident is of the year 2006 to 2008 and the charge sheet was issued on 29.01.2014. When it came to the light of the Disciplinary Authority, he submits that
