SAMARU RAM Vs. DIVISIONAL MANAGER L I C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. K. Seth, J. Quashing of the order dated 11th August, 1986 (Annexure '13'), the order dated 29th July, 1987 (Annexure '14') and order dated 9th May, 1988 (Annexure '17'j passed on appeal there out arising out of the charge-sheet dated 25th June 1979 (Annexure ('3') and the report of enquiry dated 10th March, 1986 (Annexure '10') are the orders impugned and relief sought for in this writ petition.

(2.) THE petitioner's case, as appears from the writ petition, is that after having been appointed on 18th February, 1974, the petitioner was subjected to a disciplinary proceeding under Regulation 39 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960, hereinafter referred to as 'the said Regulation', initiated by issue of charge-sheet dated 25tb June, 1979 (Annexure '3') resulting into an enquiry and a report after the petitioner had filed his reply (Annexure-6) and his participation in the enquiry. Without giving him proper opportunity to inspect documents despite his request, made by Annexure '?', punishment was inflicted upon the petitioner by the discipli nary authority under Regulation 39 (l) (d) of the said Regulations by bringing down permanently his basic salary to the minimum scale of pay applicable to him and implemented the same with effect from 11th August, 1986. THE petitioner's appeal preferred under Regulation 40 before the respondent No. 2 was decided on 29th July 1987 the said orders were challenged by means of a writ petition being Writ Petition No. Nil of 1987 which was disposed of by order dated 24th September, 1987 with the observation that under Regulation 49 of the said Regulations, the petitioner has a remedy by way of Second Appeal though the same is termed as review. THErefore, if the petitioner files a review, the same should be disposed of on merits.

(3.) THE petitioner attacked the proceedings and report of enquiry on the ground that he was not given sufficient opportunity to defend himself and he was not allowed inspection of the records despite requests made in writing and that the report of enquiry is perverse and is not based on materials on record and there are gross irregularities and that the orders passed by the appellate authority under Regulations 40 and 49 are bad and cannot be sustained and that after the counter affidavit has been exchanged, the preli minary objection as to alternative remedy cannot be raised. By means of the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has controverted the facts narrated in the counter-affidavit and reiterated those in the writ petition.