Karnataka High Court
The Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs Sri. Mareppa S/O Yamunappa Hipparagi on 28 April, 2025
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S G Pandit
-1-
WA No.100247 of 2023 c/w
WA No.100353 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT APPEAL NO.100247 OF 2023 (S-RES)
C/W
WRIT APPEAL NO.100353 OF 2023 (S-RES)
IN WA NO.100247/2023:
BETWEEN
1 . THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
JEEVA BEEMA MARG, MUMBAI-400021.
2 . THE ZONAL MANAGER
SOUTH CENTRAL ZONAL OFFICE,
JEEVAN BHAGYA SAIFABAD, HYDERABAD.
REPRESENTED BY THE A.O.(I AND HPF)
LIC OF INDIA, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, DHARWAD.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. VIGNESHWAR SHASTRI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. NARAYAN V. YAJI, ADVOCATE)
ASHPAK
KASHIMSA
MALAGALADINNI AND
Digitally signed by
ASHPAK KASHIMSA
MALAGALADINNI
SRI. MAREPPA S/O YAMUNAPPA HIPPARAGI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. NOW NIL,
DHARWAD BENCH
R/O SHASTRI NAGAR NEAR DANAMMA TEMPLE
KUNCHNUR ROAD, JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. ANANT P. SAVADI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN
WRIT PETITION NO.104045/2016 (S-RES) DATED 06.02.2023 AS IT
IS ILLEGAL & ETC.,
-2-
WA No.100247 of 2023 c/w
WA No.100353 of 2023
IN WA NO.100353/2023:
BETWEEN
MAREPPA
S/O YAMANAPPA HIPPARAGI
AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. NOW NIL,
SHASTRI NAGAR, NEAR DANAMMA TEMPLE,
KUNCHANUR ROAD, JAMAKHANDI,
R/O. JAMAKHANDI,
DIST. BAGALKOT-587301.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ANANT P. SAVADI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
REPT BY ITS MA MANAGING DIRECTOR,
JEEVA BEEMA MARG,
MUMBAI-400021.
2. THE ZONAL MANAGER
SOUTH CENTRAL ZONAL OFFICE,
JEEVAN BHAGYA, SAIFABAD,
HYDERABAD-500063.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIGNESHWAR SHASTRI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. NARAYAN V. YAJI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.104045/2016 DATED 06.02.2023 BE
KINDLY BE SET ASIDE TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE & ETC.,
THESE WRIT APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 04.04.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT THIS DAY, S.G. PANDIT, J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
-3-
WA No.100247 of 2023 c/w
WA No.100353 of 2023
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 -4- WA No.100247 of 2023 c/w WA No.100353 of 2023 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 -5- WA No.100247 of 2023 c/w WA No.100353 of 2023 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 -6- WA No.100247 of 2023 c/w WA No.100353 of 2023 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 -7- WA No.100247 of 2023 c/w WA No.100353 of 2023 charge sheet was issued on 29.01.2014. When it came to the light of the Disciplinary Authority, he submits that on the ground of delay when the petitioner was still in service, learned Single Judge could not have interfered with the order of penalty. Learned senior counsel would further pointed out that the learned Single Judge failed in coming to the conclusion that the confession of the petitioner that he has caused loss to the respondents/LIC cannot be accepted, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ROOP SINGH NEGI VS. 1 PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND OTHERS . He submits that the admission of guilt by the petitioner in the instant case is categorical and when the petitioner admits the charge, there is no necessity to conduct the detailed enquiry and the Enquiry Officer could record his findings on guilt or admission of guilt by the delinquent official. Learned senior counsel referring to Annexure-F, daily proceedings of the Enquiry Officer dated 03.09.2014 submits that the petitioner has accepted all the charges mentioned in the 1 (2009) 2 SCC 570 -8- WA No.100247 of 2023 c/w WA No.100353 of 2023 charge sheet dated 29.01.2014, as such, the question of providing opportunity of cross-examination of the witnesses and conducting of the detailed enquiry would not arise.
9. In support of his contention, learned senior counsel places reliance on the following decisions:
1) UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND OTHERS VS. DALBIR SINGH (CIVIL APPEAL NO.5848/2021)
2) UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS VS. EX. CONSTABLE RAM KARAN (CIVIL APPEAL NO.6723/2021)
3) UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS VS. M.DURAISAMY (CIVIL APEAL NO.2665/2022)
4) STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. HEMANT KUMAR (CIVIL APPEAL NO.2957/2011)
5) STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. RAM LAL BHASKAR AND ANOTHER ((2011) 6 SCC 731)
6) DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM IN THE CASE OF K.M.HABEEB MUHAMMED VS. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND OTHERS (OP.NO.38705/2001)
7) DIWAN SINGH VS. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA ((2015) AIR (SCW) 536)
8) STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS VS.
NARENDRA KUMAR PANDEY ((2013) AI(SCW) 581) -9- WA No.100247 of 2023 c/w WA No.100353 of 2023
10. We have gone through the above decisions and if necessary and if it is relevant would be referred to during the course of the present order.
11. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.Anant P. Savadi for petitioner supports the order passed by the learned Single Judge and submits that the learned Single Judge is justified in setting aside the penalty of removal from service on the ground of delay in instituting the enquiry as well as for non-providing opportunity. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the alleged incident on which the charge sheet is issued relates to the year 2006 to 2008 whereas for the first time, show cause notice was issued only on 31.12.2012 and the charge sheet was issued on 29.01.2014. The issuance of show cause notice of enquiry by issuing charge memo is after nearly 8 years. Therefore, he submits that the delay has prejudiced the case of the petitioner and delay has caused prejudice in defending the case of the petitioner.
- 10 -
WA No.100247 of 2023 c/w WA No.100353 of 2023
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no unequivocal and categorical admission of guilt or charge on the part of the petitioner. In that regard, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the proceedings of the enquiry dated 26.08.2014 wherein the petitioner has denied the charge and further stated that he would like to reply in the next proceedings, but on the next proceedings dated 03.09.2014, the petitioner has stated that he is accepting the charges leveled against him. Therefore, it is submitted that there is no categorical admission. Further, learned counsel inviting attention of this Court to the daily proceedings would submit that the documents are not marked through any witnesses, but the documents are marked through the Presenting Officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner drawing attention of this Court to Annexure-G - enquiry report submits that the enquiry report would not indicate about the examination of any witness or marking of documents through the witness. It only proceeds on the assumption that the petitioner/delinquent official has unconditionally accepted
- 11 -
WA No.100247 of 2023 c/w WA No.100353 of 2023 the charges. In the above circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner would pray for dismissal of the writ petition.
13. In support of the petitioner's contention, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the decision in the case of ROOP SINGH NEGI (supra).
14. On hearing the learned senior counsel the appellants/LIC as well as learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner and on going through the entire writ appeal papers, the only point which falls for our consideration is as to, "Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in interfering with the order of the penalty of removal and the Appellate Order confirming the order of penalty of removal?"
15. The answer to the above point would be in the Affirmative for the following reasons:
16. It is settled position of law that this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not act or sit
- 12 -
WA No.100247 of 2023 c/w WA No.100353 of 2023 as an Appellate Authority. It would only examine the process of decision making or procedure followed in the enquiry proceedings. This Court would examine as to whether the delinquent official is provided sufficient opportunity and whether the Enquiry Officer has followed the principles of natural justice while conducting enquiry. It is also settled position of law that strict rules of evidence would not apply to the departmental proceedings and charge could be proved only on the principles of preponderance of probabilities. It is also to be noted that the enquiry proceedings shall be instituted within the reasonable time from the date of occurrence of an alleged incident and if there is delay in initiating the departmental proceedings, the Disciplinary Authority shall explain or assign reason for such delay.
17. In the instant case, the charge memo dated 29.01.2014 is issued to the petitioner, alleging wrong payments causing financial loss to the respondents/LIC. The alleged incident is said to have been taken place between 31.01.2006 to 14.05.2008, whereas from the
- 13 -
WA No.100247 of 2023 c/w WA No.100353 of 2023 statement of objections, it is seen that for the first time, show cause notice in respect of the said incident was issued to the petitioner only on 31.12.2012 and thereafter charge sheet was issued on 29.01.2014 (Annexure-A). In other words, in respect of the incident which had taken place between 2006 to 2008, after 6 years, show cause notice was issued on 31.12.2012 and charge memo was issued after 8 years on 29.01.2014. Admittedly, there is delay of 8 years in initiating the enquiry by issuing charge memo. The respondents/LIC has failed to explain the delay in initiating the enquiry. In the statement of objections or in the charge memo, there is no explanation or averment with regard to delay of 6 years or 8 years in issuing show cause notice or charge memo. The charge is causing financial loss to the Corporation. When such serious charge is alleged, the respondent/LIC ought to have initiated the enquiry immediately and delay in initiating the enquiry on such serious allegation would definitely prejudice the case of the delinquent official. The delay may cause or deny the delinquent from defending himself in
- 14 -
WA No.100247 of 2023 c/w WA No.100353 of 2023 the enquiry. Therefore, learned Single Judge is justified in placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P.V.MAHADEVAN VS. MANAGING DIRECTOR, TAMILNADU HOUSING BOARD2 and coming to the conclusion that the charge sheet is liable to be set aside only on the ground of delay in issuing charge memo.
18. Learned Single Judge has observed that the confession or admission of charge by the petitioner cannot be accepted, placing reliance on the decision of ROOP SINGH NEGI (supra). The charge sheet is dated 29.01.2014. The petitioner submitted his reply in terms of Annexure-B dated 19.02.2014. The Disciplinary Authority not being satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, appointed the Enquiry Officer vide order dated 15.03.2014 to enquire into the alleged charge against the petitioner. At the first instance, the Enquiry Officer submitted report observing that the petitioner has admitted the charge. But, the Disciplinary Authority not 2 AIR 2006 SC 210
- 15 -
WA No.100247 of 2023 c/w WA No.100353 of 2023 being satisfied with the enquiry report, remitted the matter back to the Enquiry Officer to conduct de-novo enquiry in respect of the charges contained in the charge sheet dated 29.01.2014. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer proceeded to conduct enquiry on the same charge sheet dated 29.01.2014. The daily order sheet of the de-novo enquiry is placed on record as Annexure-F. The enquiry proceedings dated 26.08.2014 indicates that the petitioner/delinquent official denied the charge No.1 and stated that he would like to reply after the PO completes his submission and in respect of the charge No.2 also, the petitioner/delinquent official denied the charge and stated that he would like to reply in the next proceedings. However, in the next proceedings dated 03.09.2014, the delinquent official stated that he is accepting all the charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 29.01.2014. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer submitted enquiry report dated 07.09.2014 (Annexure-G) observing that the charges are proved as the delinquent official/petitioner herein has unconditionally accepted the charges.
- 16 -
WA No.100247 of 2023 c/w WA No.100353 of 2023
19. In the above facts and circumstances, the question is as to whether there is an admission or acceptance of charges by the petitioner/delinquent official?
20. The proceedings dated 26.08.2014 wherein the petitioner/delinquent official has denied the charge reads as follows:
"EO to CSO: Do you admit the charge and do you want to say anything with regard to charge No.1.
CSO to EO: I deny the charge. I would like to reply after the PO completes his submission.
EO to CSO: Do you admit the charge and do you want to say anything with regard to charge No.2.
CSO to EO: I deny the charge. I would like to reply in the next proceedings."
21. Subsequently, in the proceedings dated 03.09.2014 the delinquent official has stated as follows:
"EO to CSO: Are you ready to submit your oral submissions?
CSO to EO: Yes sir, I am ready.
- 17 -
WA No.100247 of 2023 c/w WA No.100353 of 2023 EO to CSO: Are you submitting any documents and list of witnesses?
CSO to EO: I am accepting all the three charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 29.01.2014 issued to me."
22. The above two contradictory statements of the petitioner/delinquent official cannot be considered as an admission or acceptance of charge. There is variance in the statements of the petitioner submitted in the proceedings dated 26.08.2014 as well as the proceedings dated 03.09.2014. When there is variance or contradictory statement, it would not amount unequivocal or categorical admission or acceptance of charge. Therefore, when there is contradictory statement, the respondents/LIC was required to conduct regular enquiry as contemplated under Regulation 39 of 1960 Regulations. Regulation 39(2) of 1960 Regulations would state that no order imposing on an employee any of the penalties specified in sub- regulation(1) shall be imposed by the Disciplinary Authority without the charge or charges being communicated to him
- 18 -
WA No.100247 of 2023 c/w WA No.100353 of 2023 in writing and without his having been given an opportunity of defending himself against such charge or charges and of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken against him.
23. When the petitioner/delinquent official has given contradictory statements and when it would not amount to unequivocal or categorical admission, it was bounden duty of the Disciplinary Authority to examine the witnesses in respect of the alleged charge and the petitioner ought to have been provided an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. Non-examination of witnesses would amount to violation of principles of natural justice. In that, the petitioner had no opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in ROOP SINGH NEGI (supra), wherein in an identical circumstances the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraphs 14 and 15 has observed that the departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial proceedings. The Enquiry Officer performs quasi
- 19 -
WA No.100247 of 2023 c/w WA No.100353 of 2023 judicial function. Further, it is observed that the confession should have been proved.
24. The respondents/LIC has not examined any witnesses to mark the documents. The documents are marked through the Presenting Officer, which is clear from the Annexure-F, daily proceedings of the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer in the proceedings dated 26.08.2014 with regard to marking of documents has recorded as follows:
"PO to EO: I am submitting the below mentioned documents in support of my oral
submissions. I request you to mark them. However I reserve the right to submit further documents or witnesses if feel necessary at a later time.
1) Policy status report of policy No.661926577 - LA Rangappa T. Shingareddi
2) A sheet from manually maintained cheque handing over register - Cheque entries from 23953 to 23970
3) Policy status report of policy No.633819204 - LA M.M.Gorikhan
4) Policy status report of Policy NO.661197076 - LA Basawaraj S. Patil
- 20 -
WA No.100247 of 2023 c/w WA No.100353 of 2023
5) Letter from corporation bank ref:
OR/JKD/176/2011-12 dated 10.12.2011.
6) Letter from corporation bank ref:
OR/CB/JKD/54/2012-13 dated 21.07.2012. EO to PO and CSO: The documents are marked as P-6 Policy status report of policy No.661926677 -
LA M.M.Rangappa T. Singareddi P-7 A sheet from manually maintained cheque handing over register - Cheque entries from 23953 to 23970 P-8 Policy status report of policy No.633819204 -
LA M.M.Gorikhan P-9 Policy status report of Policy NO.661197076 -
LA Basawaraj S. Patil P-10 Letter from corporation bank ref:
OR/JKD/176/2011-12 dated 10.12.2011 P-11 Letter from corporation bank ref:
OR/CB/JKD/54/2012-13 dated 21.07.2012."
25. The above recording of the proceedings of the Enquiry Officer would abundantly make it clear that no witnesses on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority are examined and documents are marked. The documents are marked at the request of the Presenting Officer and such procedure is unknown to law. Without recording evidence
- 21 -
WA No.100247 of 2023 c/w WA No.100353 of 2023 and without placing on record the cogent materials, the Enquiry Officer could not have come to the conclusion that such serious charge of causing financial loss to the respondents/LIC has been held proved. Moreover, when the Disciplinary Authority at the first instance, remitted the matter back to the Enquiry Officer for de-novo enquiry on the ground that he is not categorically admitted the charges could not have accepted the de-novo enquiry report, which is also submitted with an observation that the petitioner/delinquent official has unconditionally accepted the charges. The Disciplinary Authority failed to examine as to whether the Enquiry Officer has followed the principles of natural justice and whether the findings of the Enquiry Officer is based on the evidence or material on record, which are placed on record by following the procedure prescribed under Regulation 39 of 1960 Regulations.
26. As stated above, learned counsel for the respondents/LIC has placed reliance on several judgments. Except one judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
- 22 -
WA No.100247 of 2023 c/w WA No.100353 of 2023 Court in the case of STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. HEMANT KUMAR3, all other judgments are irrelevant and which are on different fact situation. All other judgments would lay down the principles as to when the High Court could interfere in the matter of order passed in a departmental enquiry. Further, the decisions would state that under what circumstances the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could interfere with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. All those decisions are on the order passed imposing penalty, after conducting enquiry by following the procedure prescribed under law. In the instant case, the respondents/LIC has failed to follow the prescribed procedure in conducting the enquiry and as such those decisions would not come to the aid of the respondents/LIC.
27. In HEMANT KUMAR (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that when the delinquent official has tendered two admissions of guilt, one in writing and one 3 CIVIL APPEAL No.2957/2011
- 23 -
WA No.100247 of 2023 c/w WA No.100353 of 2023 orally, there was no question of providing opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal. It is seen from the facts of the said case that the delinquent official has tended two admissions, one in writing and one oral admission. There was no contradictory statement, but all were admissions of the guilt. Therefore, the said decision would not apply to the facts of the present case, where there are contradictory statements of the petitioner/delinquent official.
28. The petitioner/delinquent official is also in appeal against granting only 50% of back wages and praying for grant of 100% of back wages. It is an admitted fact that on removal of petitioner from service, he was out of service and he has not worked. When the petitioner has not worked, learned Single Judge in his discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has granted 50% back wages. The petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the grant of 50% back wages. Further, since the petitioner has not worked, he would not be entitled for 100% backward wages.
- 24 -
WA No.100247 of 2023 c/w WA No.100353 of 2023
29. For the reasons recorded above, both the writ appeals are devoid of merits and accordingly both the writ appeals stand dismissed.
Sd/-
(S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE NC.
CT:VP