- (1.) VIKRAM Nath, J. This intra Court appeal, under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court has been filed against the judgment of learned single Judge dated 21-7-1999 in Writ Petition No. 19020 of 1996 whereby the writ petition of the respondent has been allowed and the orders of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority dated 7-7-1995 and 19-3-1996 respectively dismissing the petitioner from service have been quashed and it has been left open to the respondent to hold inquiry afresh or from the stage before the submission of the inquiry report after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner.
(2.) THE respondent Aneep Mehta was initially appointed as Assistant in the Life Insurance Corporation of India (appellant) in the year 1971. Subsequently he was promoted as Higher Grade Assistant (in short HGA) and continued to work with the appellant. According to the service conditions of the respondent he was entitled for leave transfer concession (in short referred as LTC) as provided in the Life Insurance Corporation of India Staff Regulation 1960 (in short referred to as the 1960 Regulation ). In the year 1992 the petitioner claimed advance and subsequently reimbursement of the remaining amount for LTC undertaken by him and his family from 16-5-1992 till 26-5-1992. THE total amount claimed in the LTC claim form was Rs. 10692/- (Rs. Ten thousand six hundred and ninety two only ). THE respondent had initially claimed advance of Rs. 8500/- and upon return he submitted the LTC claim form and claimed the balance amount of Rs. 2,192/ -. THE journey as shown in the claim bill was for (i) 16-5-1992-17-5-1992 Allahabad to New Delhi (ii) 19-5- 1992 - 25-5-1992 New Delhi to Jammu Tavi, (iii) 22-5- 1992 - 23-5-1992 Jammu Tavi to Dehradun, (iv) 24-5-1992 Dehradun to Meerut city and (v) 25-5-1992 to 26-5-1992 Meerut city to Allahabad. All the legs of the journey were undertaken in II AC sleeper class. Charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 4-3-1993 alleging that the LTC bill dated 6-6-1992 for the journey undertaken from 16-5-1992 to 26-5-1992 were actually not undertaken and a false claim has been raised in order to make wrongful gains. The respondent submitted his reply to fee charge sheet and denied the charges. In the mean time, the wife of the respondent had died and therefore, in his reply to the charge-sheet he mentioned that initially the details were not traceable but after searching the belongings of his late wife he was able to get the ticket number which he mentioned in his reply. It was also mentioned that the ticket Numbers 72122-72127 mentioned were of the first class which were changed into II AC sleeper Class and also extended for further journey by ticket No. 02356 on the journey. The respondent also gave the details of his relatives at different places where he had stayed. He also mentioned in his reply that after reaching New Delhi where the family stayed for three days, in between he had to returned to Allahabad for urgent work on 17- 5-1992 and returned the same day and joined his family on 18-5- 1992 for further journey. The inquiry continued and in the mean time, the petitioner asked for certain document etc. After inquiry and verification from the railway authority regarding the details of the ticket mentioned by the respondent the inquiry officer submitted his report dated 13-5-1994 holding that the respondent was guilty of submitting a false bill as he had never undertaken any journey as alleged in the claim bill and therefore, having attempted to make wrongful gain from the Corporation is honesty and integrity had failed. The disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice dated 26-10-1994 proposing to award punishment of dismissal. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 17-12-1994 to the disciplinary authority. However, the show cause submitted by the respondent did not find favour to the disciplinary authority and he passed the order of punishment, dated 7-7-1995 imposing penalty of removal from service under Regulation 39 (1) (f) of the 1960 Regulations. The respondent preferred statutory appeal to the Managing Director which was also dismissed vide order dated 19-3-1999. Aggrieved by the said two orders the writ petition was filed by the respondent 'which has been allowed by the learned single Judge holding that the finding recorded by the inquiry, officer was perverse and there was not enough material to prove the charge and also that an important and vital document had been suppressed by the employer and also there was non application of mind by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. The learned single Judge on the above findings set aside both the orders and directed for either holding for a fresh inquiry or from the stage before the submission of inquiry report after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned single Judge, the present special appeal has been filed by the disciplinary authority. We have heard Sri Manish Goel, learned Counsel for the appellant and the respondent in person and have also perused the record.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant, in short has raised the following three contentions: firstly there was sufficient material available on record of the inquiry to establish the charge leveled against the respondent and therefore, even if one or two documents were not considered, it would not vitiate either the inquiry report or the order of punishment based upon the said inquiry report. The next contention is that the judgment of the learned single Judge is beyond the scope of judicial review permissible under Article 226 of Constitution. Lastly it is contended that show cause notice with regard to quantum of punishment was given to the respondent and therefore, no fault could be found with the punishment awarded as being disproportionate or incommensurate with the gravity of the charge leveled. In support of these contentions learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the following authorities: (A) SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW: (1) 1970 SLR 321, Kshirode Behari Chakravarty v. Union of India, (Paragraph-4) (2) AIR 1963 SC 1723, State of A. P. and Ors. v. Shree Rama Rao, (Paragraph-7) (3) 1995 (1) LBESR 77 (SC) : AIR 1995 SC 561, Govt. of Tamil Nadu and Anr. v. A. Rajapandian, (Paragraphs 8, 9 and 10) (4) 1997 (3) SCC 657, Rai Bareli Khsetriya Gramin Bank v. Bhola Nath Singh and Ors. , (Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6) (5) JT 1999 (6) SC 6, U. P. S. R. T. C. and Ors. v. Musai Ram and Ors. , (Paragraph-9) (6) JT 1999 (4) SC 489, Bank of India and Anr. v. Degala Suryanarayana, (Paragraphs 11 and 13) (7) 1997 (1) LBESR 930 (SC) : 1997 (75) FLR 949, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors. v. Ashok Kumar Arora, (At page 954 and 955) (B) QUANTUM OF PUNISHMENT-SCOPE OF INTERFERENCE: (1) 2005 (1) LBESR 830 (SC) : 2005 (3) SCC 254, Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) v. A. T. Mane, (Paragraph-12) (2) 2003 (1) LBESR 863 (SC) : 2003 (3) SCC 605, RM, UPSRTC, Etawah and Ors. v. Hoti Lal and Anr. , (Paragraph 10) (3) 2005 (1) LBESR 825 (SC) : 2004 (8) SCC 218, RM. RSRTC v. Sohan Lal, (Para 10 and 11) (C) NON-RECORDING OF REASONS-NOT ULTRAVIREs (1) 1995 (6) SCC 279, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. P. D. Grover, (Paragraph 13) (2) AIR 1987 SC 2106, Buxi Sardari Lal v. Union of India, (Paragraph 8);