Advocates:
['A K SAHANI', '', 'AJIT KUMAR', 'SACHIN KUMAR']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(S) No.5914 of 2010

Ajay Kumar Jha, Son of Sri Mahendra Jha, Resident of At & PO: Lai,

PS: Surajgarh, District- Lakhisarai (Bihar) …

…

Petitioner

-Versus-

1. Life Insurance Corporation of India, a Government of India

Undertaking, having its Registered Office at Jeevan Bima Marg,

Mumbai, PO & PS: Mumbai, District- Mumbai (Maharashtra)

through its Chairman

2. Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Jeevan Bima

Marg,

Mumbai

PO&

PS:

Mumbai,

District-

Mumbai

(Maharashtra)

3. Zonal

Manager-cum-Appellate

Authority,

Life

Insurance

Corporation of India, East Central Zonal Office, Jeevandeep

Building, Exhibition Road, PO: Exhibition Road, PS: Gandhi

Maidan, District- Patna (Bihar)

4. Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India,

Hazaribagh Division, PO, PS& District- Hazaribagh

5. Manager (Personnel & Industrial Relations), Life Insurance

Corporation of India, Hazaribagh Division, PO, PS & District-

Hazaribagh

…

… Respondents

---

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioner

: Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate

For the Respondents

:Mr. Sachin kumar, Advocate

: Ms. Surabhi, Advocate

---

20/12.07.2022

Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioner.

2.

Heard Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the respondents alongwith Ms. Surabhi, Advocate.

3.

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated

23.08.2010 (Annexure-11) passed by the Respondent No.3-appellate

authority pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No.

3501 of 2006 disposed of vide order dated 15.04.2010. The petitioner

has also challenged the order dated 27.04.2004 (Annexure-7) passed

by the Respondent No.4-disciplinary authority whereby and

whereunder the petitioner has been removed from service on account

of his absence from duty without intimation to the respondents since

16.05.2003 which as per the respondents tantamount to the

abandonment of post.

4.

The foundational facts of the case are not in dispute.

2

(a)

The petitioner was working as Higher Grade Assistant with

the respondents since February, 1998.

(b)

He was transferred to Dhanbad Branch No.1 in December,

2002.

(c)

He made an application for grant of leave for the period

from 27.03.2003 to 15.05.2003 by citing personal ground

and the leave was sanctioned.

(d)

Thereafter, the petitioner did not return back on duty.

(e)

Under such circumstances, repeated intimations were sent at

the address available in the records of the respondents

through registered post, but the petitioner did not join the

duty and consequently, the charge sheet-cum-show cause

notice dated 16.12.2003 was issued. The charge sheet-cum-

show cause notice has not been brought on record by the

parties. However, a copy of the same has been produced by

the learned counsel for the respondents during the course of

hearing. As per the charge sheet-cum-show cause notice, it

reveals that the authority provisionally held the petitioner

guilty of abandonment of post and therefore, proposed to

impose penalty of removal in terms of Regulation 39(1) (f)

of the Life Insurance Corporationof India (Staff)

Regulations, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the

Regulations of 1960).

(f)

The petitioner did not respond to any of the communications

issued by the respondents asking the petitioner to join the

duty and ultimately, it was held that the petitioner had

abandoned the post in terms of Regulation 39(4)(iii) read

with Explanation-1.

(g)

The petitioner was terminated vide order dated 27.04.2004

(Annexure-7).

(h)

The appeal was also dismissed.The petitioner filed W.P.(S)

No. 3501 of 2006 and the writ petition was disposed of by

setting aside the appellate order with certain observations

and directions. Pa