K.C.Jain v. LIC of India Etc

IN T K.C. Jain Life Insuran

K.C. Jain Life Insuran

CORAM:

Present:

ALOK JAI

¶1Article 226/2 direction spe

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

CWP-7184-1999 (

Date Versus

nce Corporation of India and Ors CWP-17919-2000 (

Versus

nce Corporation of India and Ors HON'BLE MR. JUSTICEALO

**** Mr. Sunil Chadha, Senior Advo Mr. Paras Chander, Advocate f Mr. Prateek Mahajan, Advocate Mr. Daanish Mahajan, Advocat

****

IN, J. The writ petition bearing CWP 227 of the constitution of India, s ecially in the nature of the certiorar AB AND HARYANA AT RH (O&M) of Decision:-20.12.2024 ……Petitioner s. ……Respondents (O&M) ……Petitioner s. ……Respondents OK JAIN ocate with for the petitioner(s). e and te for the respondents. P-7184-1999has been filed under seeking issuance of writ, order or ri for quashing of the charge sheet

r

s

r

s

r r t

dated 16.10 including the reduction in writ petition appropriate w letters dated P-12), wher previously di not entitled to Factual Mat

¶2cases are in Consequently

¶3respondent-C years. On 2 retirement w However, pr

18.06.1996, submitted by consequently

29.06.1996.It policyholder' on 01.07.199

.1996 (Annexure P-10) includin e order dated 18.07.1998 (Annexu the basic pension by ₹94/- was im n bearing CWP-17919-2000 has b writ, order or direction in the nat

27.06.2000/03.07.2000 (Annexure reby the petitioner was directed isbursed to him as penal interest a o any penal interest. trix Both writ petitions are being take nter-related, with one being a y, it is deemed necessary to address The petitioner had joined as Corporation, Ambala, on 23.12.197

26.04.1996, the petitioner submit w.e.f. 30.06.1996, under the LIC rior to his relieving, the respond sought explanation regarding M y the petitioner for policies issued y, deferred his request for v t was alleged that the MHRs o 's medical history, to which petiti

¶96The respondent-corporation lat ng all consequential proceedings ure P-19), whereby the penalty of mposed upon the petitioner and the been filed for the issuance of an ture of certiorari for quashing the e P-10)and 27.07.2000 (Annexure d to remit the amount₹23,381/- and informed that the petitioner is en up together as the facts of both subsequent event of the other. s them together. a Development Officer in the 71 and served diligently for over 24 tted an application for voluntary of India (Pension) Rules, 1995. dent-Corporation vide letter dated Moral Hazard Reports (MHRs) to Shri Gobind Ram Chawla and voluntary retirement vide order omitted crucial details about the ioner had submitted detailed reply ter informed the petitioner through

s f e n e e - s h . e y . d ) d r e y h

letter dated 2 the final ou voluntary ret duties w.e.f retiral benefi

¶4dated 16.10 negligence a

09.12.1996, a fitness. Nev respondent-C imposed a p ₹94. The pen Therefore, t penalty, in

18.07.1998.

5.

19.08.1996 w leave encash inordinate de benefits, the respondent-c by the re

25.07.1996 that the petitioner's vo utcome of the issue of false MH tirement was sanctioned on 19.08

21.08.1996. Despite of his retirem its illegally. Post-retirement, the respondent-

0.1996, upon the petitioner on and misconduct. The petitioner su asserting that MHRs solely assess vertheless, the Enquiry Officer f Corporation on the basis of the penalty vide order dated 18.07.199 nsion rules, provided no recourse the petitioner has challenged th the CWP-7184-1999, which Subsequently, the respondent-withheld substantial retiral benef hment, and commutation of pen elay on the part of the respondent-c e petitioner had served a legal n corporation for the payment with i spondent citing the absence oluntary retirement will subject to HRs. Eventually, the petitioner's

8.1996 and he was relieved from ment, the respondent withheld the Corporation served charge-sheet

30.11.1996, by alleging gross ubmitted reply to the charges on financial capacity and not medical found the petitioner guilty. The enquiry report dated 18.06.1997, 98, reducing his basic pension by for an appeal against the penalty. he departmental proceedings and was admitted vide order dated -corporation vide letter dated fits of the petitioner i.e. gratuity, nsion. Consequently, due to the corporation in releasing pensionary notice dated 16.08.1998 upon the interest, but the same was refused of provision in the (Staff)

o s m e t s n l e , y . d d d , e y e d )

Regulations/P during the pe

6.

10.01.1999ad Karnal, by c entitlement t gratuity and

17.07.1999, @10% p.a. o on additiona ₹23,381/-.Th protest, and c of interest @

7.

27.06.2000/0 previously p Although, th Corporation, same by cont earliest date penal interest

¶8already disbu 50%. Aggrie

Pension Rules, 1995 for paymen endency of disciplinary proceeding The petitioner reiterated hi ddressingto the Senior Divisional citing relevant legal provisions and to interest on the delayed paymen gratuity. In response, the respon informed that the competent auth on delayed payment of gratuity for al gratuity for 2 months and 2 da he petitioner acknowledges the re continued with his case with the re @ 18% p.a. The respondent-corporation

03.07.2000 (Annexure P-10) de paid penal interest, claiming it to he petitioner submitted a detai through letter dated 27.07.2000 tended that since the charge sheet h on which the gratuity could have b t had been incorrectly disbursed. Later on, the respondent-corpora ursed, from petitioner's monthly eved thereby, the impugned lett t of interest on withheld gratuity gs. is request vide letter dated Manager, LIC, Divisional Office, d judicial precedents to assert his nt of leave encashment, additional ndent-corporation vide letter dated hority has approved penal interest r 1 year 11 months and 1 day and ays @ 9% p.a. which amounts to eceipt of the said amount under espondent-corporation for payment n vide letter dated emanded the remittance of the had been erroneously disbursed. iled reply, but the respondent- (Annexure P-12), countered the had been served on 18.07.1998, the been due was 18.07.1998, thus the ation started deducting the amount pension by reducing the same to ters dated 27.06.2000/03.07.2000

y d , s l d t d o r t d e . - e e e t o

(Annexure P 17919-2000. Petitioner's

¶9voluntary ret by the respon proceedings petitioner un under Regula against him.

¶10relevant rule corporation relevant to ch is vehementl (Staff) Regul relevant prov

P-10) and 27.07.2000 (Annexure P Arguments in CWP No. 7184 of The learned counsel for the petiti tirement of the petitioner, no disci ndent-corporation and once the pet could be initiated by the res nder the Life Insurance of India (St ation 39 under which the charge s It is further argued that the charg of Pension Rules, 1995, which ha for initiating the disciplinary p heck the authenticity or legality of ly submitted that the Regulation 3 lations, 1960, could not be attracted vision is reproduced as under: "Penalties: 39. (1) Without prej rules, any one or more of the f sufficient reasons, and as hereinaf disciplinary authority specified in commits a breach of rules of t negligence, inefficiency or indo anything detrimental to the in conflicting with the instructions discipline, or is guilty of any other Minor Penalties: (a) censure; P-12) was challenged in the CWP-1999 ioner submitted that till the date of iplinary proceedings were initiated titioner was retired, no disciplinary spondent-corporation against the taff) Regulations, 1960, especially sheet dated 16.10.1996 was issued ge-sheet didn't find mention of any d been invoked by the respondent-proceedings, which otherwise is the proceedings and the penalty. It 39 of the Life Insurance of India d as he was already retired, and the ejudice to the provisions of other following penalties for good and after provided, be imposed [by the n Schedule-1 on an employee who the Corporation, or who display olence or who knowingly does terest of the Corporation , or s or who commits a breach of r act prejudicial to good conduct –

- f d y e y d y - s t a e r d e o y s r f

f f

(b) withholding of one or more inc exceeding three years;

(c) recovery from pay or such othe the whole or part of any pecuniar by negligence or breach of orders;

(d) withholding of promotion;

(e) reduction to a lower stage in a exceeding three years, without cu affecting his pension. Major Penal

(f) reduction to a lower stage in a period exceeding three years with with further direction as to wheth increments of pay during the perio

(g) reduction to a lower service or a lower stage in a time-scale;

(h) compulsory retirement;

(i) removal from service which s future employment;

(j) dismissal.; No order imposing on an employe clauses (f) to (j) of sub-rule (1 disciplinary authority specified in charges being communicated to having been given a reasonable against such charge or charges a action proposed to be taken agains

(3) the disciplinary authority empo penalties under clauses (f) to (j) into such of the charges as are necessary so to do, appoint a boar for the purpose;

(ii) the disciplinary authority or a Schedule I may impose any of the p

(iii) where it is proposed to impos clauses (b) to (e) of sub-rule (1), informed in writing of the impu given an opportunity to submit within a specified period not excee period as may be granted by th defence statement, if any, submitte into consideration by the discip crements for a specified period not er amount as may be due to him of ry loss caused to the Corporation ; a time-scale of pay for a period not umulative effect and not adversely lties: a time scale of pay for a specified h or without cumulative effect and her or not the employee will earn od of such reduction; r post or to a lower time scale or to shall not be a disqualification for ee any of the penalties specified in 1) supra, shall be passed by the n Schedule I without the charge or him in writing and without his opportunity of defending himself and of showing cause against the st him. owered to impose any of the major of sub-rule (1) may itself enquire e not admitted or if it considers rd of enquiry or an enquiry officer ny higher authority as specified in penalties specified in rule 39; e any of the minor penalties under , the employee concerned shall be tation of lapses against him and his written statement of defence eding fifteen days or such extended he disciplinary authority and the ed by the employee shall be taken plinary authority before passing

t f n t y d d n o r n e r s f e r e s r n r e d e d e n g

orders. However, where the disci an inquiry is necessary it shall fol major penalty under clauses (f) to

(iv) where the disciplinary auth penalty to be imposed is any of th to (j) of sub-rule (I), and if it is authority in respect of the categ employee belongs, it shall subm recommendations regarding the p records of the enquiry shall also authority in such cases and therea make an order imposing such pena

(v) where there is a complaint meaning of rule 24A of the Life (Staff) Rules, 1960, the Internal C in each Divisional or Zonal or Cen complaints shall be deemed to be officer appointed by the disciplin clause (i) of sub-rule (3);

(vi) where two or more employ authority competent to impose employees may make an order di against all of them may be taken in

(4) Notwithstanding anything co above- (i) where a penalty is i grounds of conduct which had le charge; or

(ii) where the authority concerne recorded in writing, that it is not the procedure prescribed in this ru

(iii) Where an employee has aba authority may consider the circum orders thereon as it deems fit. Explanations: 1. For the purpose deemed to have abandoned his po without leave or overstays his l ninety days without any intimation

¶2All communications under this there under may be delivered pe attending office; otherwise they s the address noted in the service re or copies of orders cannot be registered post, copies thereof sha the office in which the employee iplinary authority is satisfied that llow the procedure for imposing a

(j) of sub-rule (1); hority is of the opinion that the he penalties specified in clauses (f) s lower in rank to the appointing egory of employees to which the it to the appointing authority its penalty that may be imposed and o be submitted to the appointing after the appointing authority shall alty, as it considers appropriate; of sexual harassment within the e Insurance Corporation of India Complaints Committee established ntral Office for inquiring into such a board of enquiry or an enquiry nary authority for the purpose of yees are involved in a case, the a major penalty on all such irecting that departmental enquiry n a common proceeding. ontained in sub-rules (1) and (2) imposed on an employee on the ed to a conviction on a criminal ed is satisfied, for reasons to be t reasonably practicable to follow ule; or andoned his post, the disciplinary mstances of the case and pass such of this rule, an employee shall be ost if he absents himself from duty leave for a continuous period of n there for in writing. rule and copies of orders passed ersonally to the employee if he is shall be sent by registered post to ecord. Where such communications served on him personally or by all be affixed on the notice board of is employed, and on such affixing

t a e ) g e s d g l e a d h y f e h y ) e l e w y h e y f d s o s y f g

¶11Rules, 1995, the petitione arguments, h pensioner is 39 of the Sta petitioner rel under prima follow

¶12penalty spec

such communications and orders properly served on him.

(iv)(A) Employees other than e Insurance Corporation of India ( against whom disciplinary proce cease to be in service on the disciplinary proceedings shall con the proceedings are concluded an thereof.

(B) The concerned employee shall after the date of superannuation a payment of retirement benefits ti and final order is passed thereo contribution to Provident Fund proceedings if not initiated while be instituted in respect of a cause o of an event which took place m institution;

(v) Notwithstanding anything Disciplinary Authority may, on t release retirement benefits durin proceedings." The Counsel further submits tha had been invoked then also there er was found guilty of grave he further relies upon Rule 45 prima-facie found guilty of grave aff Regulations, 1960can be follow lied upon is read as under: "45. Pensioner guilty of grave m r rule 44 if the Competent Authori a facie guilty of grave misconduct, w the procedure specified in regulat The counsel for the petitioner ific reference had been made to s shall be deemed to have been employees governed by the Life (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995 eedings have been initiated shall date of superannuation, but the ntinue as if he was in service until nd final order is passed in respect l not receive any pay or allowance and he shall not be entitled for the ill the proceedings are completed on except in the case of his own d. Provided that no disciplinary the employee was in service, shall of action which arose or in respect more than four years before such contained in clause (iv), the the basis of merits of each case ng pendency of the disciplinary at even if any Rules of Pension is nothing which could show that misconduct. To substantiate his which suggests that where the e misconduct then only Regulation wed. The Rule 45 upon which the misconduct -In a case not falling ity considers that the pensioner is it shall, before passing an order, tion 39 of the Staff Regulations." submitted that while imposing Rule 48(1) of the Pension Rules,

n e l e l t e e d n y l t h e e y n t s e n e g s

g ,

1995, which corporation a loss had ever the LRs of Sh of the Pensio The ther rec to t pen per Pro fina Pro emp dee con man Pro init of a pla

(2) loss rate reti with sha

¶13allegation qu Report (MHR required to su

h otherwise deals with recovery and the counsel submitted that in r been caused to the respondent-cor hri Gobind Ram Chawla were repu on Rules, 1995, can be read as unde "48. Recovery of Pecuniary los e Competent Authority may withhol reof, whether permanently or fo overy from pension of the whole or the Corporation if in any departm nsioner is found guilty of grave mis riod of his service : ovided that the Executive Commit al orders are passed: ovided further that departmental p ployee was in service, shall, after emed to be proceedings under this ncluded by the authority by which nner as if the employee had continu ovided also that no departmenta tiated while the employee was in se a cause of action which arose or ce more than four years before suc ) Where the Competent Authority s from the pension, the recovery s e exceeding one-third of the pen irement of the employee: Provide hheld or withdrawn, the amount all not be less than the minimum pe The counsel further raised his ar ua the petitioner was that he had no R) of Shri Gobind Ram Chawla. ubmit report qua personal habits, s of pecuniary loss caused to the the present case no such financial rporation as all the claims made by udiated by the corporation. Rule 48 er: ss caused to the Corporation (1) ld or withdraw a pension or a part or a specified period, and order r part of any pecuniary loss caused mental or judicial proceedings the sconduct or negligence during the ttee shall be consulted before any proceedings, if instituted while the the retirement of the employee, be s rule and shall be continued and they were commenced in the same ued in service: al or judicial proceedings, if not ervice, shall be instituted in respect in respect of an event which took ch institution. orders recovery of the pecuniary shall not ordinarily be made at a nsion admissible on the date of ed that where a part of pension is of pension drawn by a pensioner nsion payable under these rules." rgument to the point that the main ot submitted correct Moral Hazard However, the petitioner was only standard of living and income, etc.

e l y ) t r d e e y e e d e t t k y a f s r n d y .

and as regar respondent-c of the deceas Petitioner's

¶14incontroverti retirement, n was pending delayed, and penal interes submitted th 10) was unil opportunity o mentioned in gratuity of th

¶15interest was said paymen without affor illegal. Respondent

¶16petitioner wa for his volun

rds to medical health of Gobind corporation were the competent per sed. Arguments in CWP No. 17919 of The Counsel for the petitioner sub ible statutory right and at the neither there was any departmental g against him. Despite which, th d consequently thereto the respon st on the delayed payment, altho hat the impugned Letter dated 27.0 laterally issued by the respondent of being heard to the petitioner. It n the Regulation 77 can be invok he petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner furt itself rightly paid by the corpora nt and the initiation of recovery rding opportunity for hearing are 's Arguments The counsel for the respondents a as posted as Assistant Branch Man ntary retirement, which was consi Ram Chawla, the doctors of the rson to state about the health status f 1999 bmits that the right to gratuity is an time of petitioner's voluntary l proceeding nor any charge-sheet he retiral benefits were unjustly ndent-corporation itself remit the ugh at a lesser rate. It is further

06.2000/03.07.2000 (Annexure P- -corporation without granting any is argued that none of the grounds ked to justify the forfeiture of the ther submitted that since the penal ation, the subsequent retraction of y by the respondent-corporation, arbitrary, capricious, and patently at the outset had submitted that the nager (Sales) when he requested of idered by the competent authority

e s n y t y e r - y s e l f , y e f y

and it was d retirement it policies on t amounting to which the co the responde petitioner to

21.08.1996. I entitlements benefits. Ho disciplinary p sheet dated 1 and penalty clarified by t policies were petitioner. H and the pena principle of n

¶17in the Staff withheld dur order for pay corrected by to remit the

decided to relieve the petitioner on was found that the petitioner had the name of Shri Gobind Ram Ch o ₹ 6 Lacs on account of demise mpetent authority deferred his retir nt-corporation intends to initiate d which the petitioner submitted It is further submitted that the petit as to provisional pension and his owever, the gratuity was withh proceedings. Thereafter, the petiti

16.10.1996. Due opportunity of he of reduction in basic pension by the counsel that the agent and Me e also terminated and much lesser ence there is nothing by which it c alty imposed on the petitioner wa natural justice. The counsel for the respondent su Regulations or Pension Rules fo ring pendency of disciplinary proce yment of penal interest to the petitio further order of the respondent-co same. As admittedly, the final ord n 29.06.1996, however before his d submitted false MHR under six hawla which resulted into claims, e of Gobind Ram Chawla, due to rement and duly informed him that isciplinary proceedings against the his reply and he was relieved on tioner was duly informed about his own contribution to PF and GSLI held till the completion of the ioner was served with the charge-earing was given to the petitioner y ₹94/- was imposed. It is further edical Examiner involved in these punishment has been given to the an be inferred that the proceedings s unfair, unjust or contrary to the ubmitted that there is no provision or payment of interest on gratuity eedings, however, inadvertently an oner was made, which was later on orporation, directing the petitioner der on the charge-sheet was issued

s x , o t e n s I e - r r e e s e n y n n r d

on 18.07.199 earliest and t the part of th

¶18sent to the pe petitioner the was stated th recovery was

¶19been followe that the proce major penalty gave any exh conclusion d misconduct a

¶20raised by the

¶217184 of 1999 petitioner as therefore, a would not fa does not find

98, therefore the gratuity fell due f the same was released on 04.08.1 he respondent-corporation. The counsel further stated that a etitioner to remit the amount and d e order of recovery was fairly pas hat only part of the amount i.e. ₹ s stayed by this Hon'ble Court vide The counsel vehemently argued t ed during the proceedings and imp edure under Regulation 39, was du y. Moreover, explanation (b) to Ru haustive definition of the term "gr drawn by the Inquiry officer the and hence was rightly imposed the Heard counsel for the parties a counsel for the parties. The arguments raised by the coun 9isthat the Moral Hazard Reports( s an additional document for con minor wrong information with re all under the definition of "grave m d merit in the said argument for th for payment to him on this date at 998, hence there was no delay on as already two notices/letters were due to the failure on the part of the sed by the competent authority. It 9716/- was recovered and further e order dated 30.01.2001. that due procedure and the law had posing the penalty. It was averred uly complied with before imposing ule 46 of the Pension Rules, did not rave misconduct". Considering the e petitioner was guilty of grave penalty. at length, and no other argument nsel for the petitioner in CWP No.

(MHRs) were merely given by the nsideration by the authorities and egard to the health of the insured misconduct". This Court, however, e reason that, the petitioner, was a

t n e e t r d d g t e e t . e d d , a

responsible Assistant Bra and had he s the initial sta Medical Off similarity ac demonstrate of intention b The modus petitioner fai it would amo to which ru Corporation were repudia the outcome Manager(Sal analyze and r medical repo the petitioner major punish that the petit basic pension

Officer of the Corporation and anch Manager (Sales). It was his b submitted the correct report, the m age. However, apparently it seems ficer and others acted in collusi cross all reports, so as to substa connivance. The act of "grave mi behind it, and it need not necessa operandi was apparently to simp iled in discharging his duties to the ount to a grave misconduct. As to the other arguments raised b le would be applicable has beco did not suffer any loss as the cla ated is of no consequence, as the p e of the claims. The petitioner, les) was performing the duties an report the medical condition, whic ort was submitted by the Doctors a r for the reason that the concerned hment of termination. However, t ioner had retired from the service, n by ₹94/- was rightly imposed upo was working in the field as an bounden duty to report accurately, matter could have been clarified at s that the petitioner along with the ion to maintain consistency and antiate each other's report which isconduct" has to be seen in terms rily relate to the gravity involved. ply get the policies issued. The e best of his ability and, therefore, by the counsel for the petitioner, as ome irrelevant. The fact that the aims of Shri Gobind Ram Chawla etitioner was never interested with was posted as Assistant Branch nd was required to independently ch he failed to do. The fact that the also does not come to the rescue of d officials were also subjected to a taking a lenient view and the fact only a penalty of reduction in the on the petitioner.

n , t e d h s . e , s e a h h y e f a t e

dismissal, as process of l sanctioning o lenient view granted volu reduction in order. Theref

¶2217919 of 200 provide any c on delayed p in the admin apparent th sanction/disb misrepresent delayed paym and was rem recalled the s Although the before the re of the said n apparently a

In light of the above, discussio s the respondents were well with law. Furthermore, the other two of the policy were duly subjected to taken by the authorities and the untary retirement and authoritie the basic pension by ₹94/-, there s fore, the present CWP No. 7184 of As regards the contention raised 00, the same does not deserve acce cogent document to demonstrate th ayment granted to the petitioner w nistrative functioning cannot be att at the respondents cannot rec bursement of delayed paymen tation by the petitioner at any s ment, to which he was rightly held Considering that the interest on th mitted by the authorities, therefor said order, more so without issuing e respondents have submitted tha ecovery, however there is no cogen notices upon the petitioner. The appears to be an attempt to cove on, the present petition deserves hin their rights and followed due officials involved in the wrong o a major penalty. Considering, the fact that the petitioner had been s imposed only the penalty of eems to be no illegality in the said f 1999,stands dismissed. d by the respondents in CWP No. eptance, as the respondent failed to he basis on which the penal interest was declared as incorrect. The delay tributed to the petitioner, and it is call the relief or reverse the nt. More so, there is no stage in claiming interest on the entitled. e delayed payment was sanctioned re, the authorities could not have g the proper notice to the petitioner. at the petitioner was issued notice nt proof with regard to the service stand taken by the respondents is er up the act and conduct of the

s e g e n f d . o t y s e o e d e . e e s e

authorities an the delayed the impugne and the resp simple intere which the pa

23.

¶24case.

December 2 manju

nd to undermine the petitioner's cl payment, which was being agitate d letters dated 27.06.2000/03.07.2 pondents are directed to refund t est @7.5% p.a. within a period o ay of the concerned official shall be Pending application(s), if any, sta Photocopy of this order be place

20, 2024

Whether speaking/reasoned:-Whether Reportable:-

aim for a higher rate of interest on ed by the petitioner. Accordingly, 2000 and 27.07.2000 are quashed the amount of ₹9716/-along with of 03 months from today, failing e automatically stayed. ands disposed of. d on the file of another connected

(ALOK JAIN)

JUDGE

n , d h g d