Jharkhand High Court
Ramesh Chandra Seth vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 25 August, 2018
Author: Shree Chandrashekhar
Bench: Shree Chandrashekhar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 192 of 2016
---
Ramesh Chandra Seth, son of Jagneshwar Seth, resident of A/2, Ganesh Vihar, Shiv Path, Bhatiya Bastee, Near Durgabari, PO & PS-Kadma, Town-Jamshedpur, District-
East Singhbhum ..... .... Petitioner
--Versus--
1.Life Insurance Corporation of India, through its Divisional Manager (P&IR) Department, Divisional Office, "Jeevan Prakash", Bistupur, Main Road, PO & PS- Bistupur, Town-Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum
2.The Senior Divisional Manager, (P&IR) Department, Life Insurance Corporation, Divisional Office, "Jeevan Prakash", Bistupur, Main Road, PO and PS-Bistupur, Town-Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum
3.The Manager (P&IR), Life Insurance Corporation Department Divisional Office, "Jeevan Prakash", Bistupur, Main Road, PO & PS-Bistupur, Town-Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum .... ..... Respondents
---
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohitashya Roy, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate Mr. V. N. Choudhary, Advocate
---
15/ 25.08.2018 The petitioner seeks to challenge charge-memo dated 21.12.2015 by which a departmental proceeding has been initiated against him on the allegation that he has failed to prove genuineness of the Caste Certificate produced by him for securing appointment to the post of Typist and by the aforesaid acts he has failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and failed to serve the Corporation honestly and faithfully.
2. Contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that 35 years after his appointment as Typist and atleast seven years after the criminal case ended in his acquittal, a departmental proceeding on the allegation that he has secured appointment by producing false Caste Certificate 2 cannot be initiated. Another plea raised by the petitioner is that under Rule 39 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 after his superannuation from service neither a punishment of censure, nor reduction to a lower service or post, nor compulsory retirement, nor removal from service or dismissal from service can be inflicted upon him, and in absence of a charge of causing pecuniary loss to the Corporation any recovery from him is also not permissible under the Regulations and while so, the departmental proceeding initiated against him just ten days prior to his superannuation from service cannot continue, and therefore the charge-memo dated 21.12.2015 warrants interference by this Court.
3. Mr. Rohitashya Roy, the learned counsel for the petitioner to support the aforesaid contentions has relied on decisions in "P.V. Mahadevan vs. MD, T.N. Housing Board"
reported in (2005) 6 SCC 636 and "Anant R. Kulkarni vs. Y.P. Education Society & Ors." reported in (2013) 6 SCC 515.
4. Briefly stated, the petitioner who was appointed on the post of Typist under the respondent-LIC of India on 14.03.1981 was confirmed in service vide order dated 11.11.1981 w.e.f. 01.10.1981, after proper verification of the records which according to the petitioner include the Caste Certificate dated 13.09.1981 submitted by him. This Caste Certificate reflects that he belongs to Scheduled Caste; sub-Caste -Teli. Still, criminal case for submitting false Caste Certificate was lodged against him in which a charge- sheet for the offences punishable under section 420, 467, 468 and 120B IPC was submitted. The petitioner has asserted that in course of investigation it was found that his grand- father who had migrated from the State of Himachal Pradesh belonged to sub-Caste- Teli which is recognized as Scheduled Caste in Himachal Pradesh. The petitioner has placed 3 reliance on the Clarificatory Note dated 25.03.1988 issued by the LIC of India, whereunder it has been provided that a person belonging to SC/ST category in the State of "Origin" shall get the benefit of caste reservation in the State of his "Migration".
5. The criminal case vide G.R. Case No.1343A/1986 corresponding to T.R. No.87 of 2008 ended in acquittal of the petitioner vide judgment dated 14.02.2008 and Cr. Revision No.356 of 2009 preferred by the LIC of India against the judgment of acquittal has now been dismissed by the High Court by order dated 16.01.2018.
6. The petitioner has superannuated from service with effect from 31.12.2015 but before that on 21.12.2015 a charge-memo on the allegations that, "he has violated the provisions of Regulations 21 and 24 read with regulation 39(1) of the LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 for which any one or more of the penalties specified under Regulations 39(1)(a) to
(g) of aforesaid (Staff) Regulations can be imposed", has been served upon him.
7. Normally, challenge to a charge-sheet /charge- memo is not entertained by the writ Court at the threshold, unless it is found that it has been issued by the authority which has no jurisdiction or that it is patently illegal [refer "Union of India & Anr. Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana"
reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28"]. At this stage, an employee has limited rights in law; one of the rights is observance of the rules of natural justice. On the question of delay in issuing charge-memo to the petitioner it is pertinent to record that on the basis of a complaint that the petitioner has submitted false Caste Certificate a criminal case was registered; this case has ended in acquittal of the petitioner in the year 2008. No doubt, during this period a charge-memo could have been served upon the petitioner, but failure of the 4 employer not to initiate enquiry against the petitioner on the allegations to securing appointment by submitting a false Caste Certificate, in my opinion, would not render the charge-memo illegal. The petitioner has failed to plead and prove prejudice caused to him. Decision in "P. V. Mahadevan"
has been rendered in the facts of the said case. There is no such pleadings in the writ petition. Similar would be the position in law in respect of delay of next seven years after G.R.Case No.1343A of 1986, corresponding to T.R. No.87 of 2008 was finally disposed of; in this context it has to be kept in mind that criminal revision petition preferred by the Corporation has been dismissed now in the year 2018.
8. Contention raised by the petitioner, that now after his superannuation from service penalties provided under Regulation 39 cannot be imposed upon him, is speculative. Before the charge framed against the petitioner has failed or found proved, the petitioner now seeks termination of departmental proceeding on the ground that no penalty under Regulation 39 can be imposed upon him. Evidently, this contention is pre-mature. The plea of parity raised by the petitioner on the ground that other employees namely, Ashutosh Giri, Rabindranath Paul and Ashutosh Paul against whom also similar charge of producing false Caste Certificate has been levelled were permitted to superannuate from service and they have been paid their post-retiral benefits, in the facts of this case, cannot form a foundation for quashing the charge-memo dated 21.12.2015. It also needs to be recorded that vide letters dated 8.11.2011, 20.03.2012, 28.07.2012, 09.08.2014 and 13.05.2015 the petitioner was directed to furnish a fresh Caste Certificate, but he took a stand that he has already submitted a Caste Certificate. The charge-memo dated 21.12.2015 records that the authority which has purportedly issued the Caste 5 Certificate has informed that Register of the year 1981 is not available. Now in these facts, it was necessary for the petitioner to produce a fresh Caste Certificate. I find that the employer-LIC of India has observed the rules of natural justice by affording an opportunity to the petitioner to corroborate his stand on his caste by producing a fresh Caste Certificate.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and for the reasons indicated hereinabove, challenge to charge-memo dated 21.12.2015 must fail, however, with a view to give one more chance to the petitioner to produce a fresh Caste Certificate it is hereby ordered that final order in the departmental proceeding pursuant to charge-memo dated 21.12.2015 shall not be passed till 29.10.2018, awaiting production of a Caste Certificate by the petitioner. However, if the petitioner fails to produce a fresh Caste Certificate by that time for a just excuse, the departmental authority, after granting further opportunity to the petitioner, shall be at liberty to proceed in the matter, in accordance with law. The effect of delay in issuing the charge-memo shall be considered by the disciplinary authority on conclusion of the proceeding.
10. Another plea of the petitioner is that on the ground of pendency of departmental enquiry the employer cannot withhold his pension and other post-retiral benefits.
11. Pension, and gratuity which also forms part of pension, are statutory rights of an employee. It is not a charity. After the decision in "Deokinandan Prasad vs. The State of Bihar & Ors" reported in 1971 (2) SCC 330 now it is well-settled that pension and post-retiral benefits of an ex-employee cannot be withheld without following due process of law. It is also well-settled that on the ground of pendency of a departmental proceeding pension and gratuity payable to an employee cannot be withheld, unless the rules 6 so provide [refer"State of Jharkhand & Ors vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr." reported in (2013) 12 SCC 210]. Under the Regulations gratuity payable to an employee even in cases of termination cannot be withheld or forfeited.
12. In view of the law on the subject, the employer- LIC of India must pay pension and other post-retiral benefits to the petitioner.
13. The writ petition stands disposed of, in the aforesaid terms.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) SI/,