- (1.) Leave granted. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 10.1.2011, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal No. 7 of 2011, by way of which, the Division Bench affirmed the judgment and order dated 17.2.2010, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.11152 of 2002, by way of which, the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the appellants against the respondent have been quashed.
(2.) Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are as under: A. The respondent was working with the appellant-Corporation as a Higher Grade Assistant at its Namakkal Branch. He had applied for, and obtained, a housing loan on 20.6.1991 from the India Housing Finance & Development Ltd., Salem, for the purpose of construction of his house to the extent of 1095 sq.ft., and had also applied to the appellant- Corporation for a housing loan, under the Corporation's Individual Employees Housing Scheme for the purpose of completing construction of the said house. An amount to the tune of Rs.1,30,000/- was outstanding, against the loan availed by the respondent from the India Housing Finance & Development Ltd., as also a sum of Rs.48,000/- required for completion of the said construction. The said loan was sanctioned after completing all requisite formalities. However, it came to the notice of the appellant-Corporation that there had been certain irregularities and deviations with respect to the construction of the said house, and that the loan had been obtained upon non- disclosure of facts in entirety. Thus, a charge sheet dated 6.1.1998 was issued to the respondent, for violating the provisions of Regulations 20, 21, 27 and 39(1) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as, the 'Regulations 1960'). B. The respondent submitted his reply to the said charges, denying all of them, vide reply dated 30.1.1998. The Disciplinary Authority, however, was not satisfied with the explanation furnished by the respondent and therefore, proceeded to conduct an enquiry, in relation to which, the Enquiry Officer submitted enquiry report dated 27.1.1999. The Disciplinary Authority served upon the respondent, a copy of the said enquiry report, alongwith a show-cause notice dated 26.4.1999 giving him a period of 15 days to reply, to which the respondent furnished his reply dated 17.5.1999. C. The Disciplinary Authority, after considering the reply and the enquiry report, imposed a penalty of reduction in the basic pay of the respondent, to the minimum amount specified in the time scale applicable to him, in terms of Regulation 39(1)(d) of the Regulations, 1960, as had been proposed by it in the aforementioned show cause notice, vide order dated 31.5.1999. D. Aggrieved, the respondent preferred an appeal under Regulation 40 of the Regulations, 1960, which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority, vide order dated 11.4.2000. Thereafter, the respondent preferred a Memorial to the Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India, in Bombay, which was dismissed vide order dated 20.9.2001. E. Aggrieved, the respondent preferred a writ petition for the purpose of quashing of enquiry proceedings, the imposition of penalty, and also for re-imbursement of the amount that had been deducted from his salary, including all attendant benefits. The said writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court, vide order dated 17.2.2010, observing that the witnesses to the case, in the process of Departmental Enquiry, had been examined in violation of the statutory rules applicable herein, as well as in violation of the principles of natural justice. The delinquent was not accorded adequate opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. The Appellate Authority also failed to consider whether the procedure followed by the Enquiry Officer, as well as that followed by the Disciplinary Authority, satisfied the requirements of Regulation 46(2)(a) of the Regulations, 1960. This is because, mere concurrence of the Appellate Authority, with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, without provision of adequate reasoning, cannot be said to amount to adequate application of judicial mind by the Appellate Authority, for the purpose of imposing the said punishment. F. Aggrieved, the appellant-Corporation filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the Division Bench. Hence, this appeal.
(3.) Mr. Kailash Vasudev, learned senior counsel, alongwith Ms. Indra Sawhney, Adv. appearing for the appellants, has submitted that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction by quashing the disciplinary proceedings, as well as the punishment imposed, stating that the same does not fall within the scope of judicial review. Moreover, the decision to not remand the case for reconsideration at such a belated stage, could also not be justified. Therefore, the judgment and order of the High Court, are liable to be set aside.;