High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Amar Singh Verma v. Chairman Life Insurance Corporation & Others - WRIT - A No. 54862 of 2002  RD-AH 8354 (4 May 2007)
Court No. 10
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54862 of 2002
Amar Singh Verma
Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and others
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
As requested by learned counsel for the parties the writ petition has been heard and is being decided finally under the Rules of the Court.
The writ petition is directed against the orders dated 30.9.2002 passed by Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the "Corporation") imposing penalty of recovery of Rs. 54,147/- and Rs. 45,000/- and also reduction in basic pension by Rs. 160/- per month, upon the petitioner in terms of Rule 48 (1) of LIC of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "1995 Rules").
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that he retired on 31.1.1998 while the charge sheets were issued and served upon him on 2.2.1998 (after retirement). He further contended that since the charges leveled in the charge sheets were in respect to the incident which took place in 1992 i.e. more than 4 years ago and therefore, the entire proceeding are illegal and contrary to Rule 48(1) of 1995 Rules.
Sri Padia, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation on the contrary submitted that charge sheets sent to the petitioner by registered post receipt No. 2345 dated 27.1.1998 at his residential address since he was not attending office. Further three officials were also deputed to personally serve charge sheets on him and sent at his residence on 27.1.1998 and as per the report of the said officials, the petitioner refused to accept the same. Again on 28.1.1998 three officials were sent at his residence to deliver charge sheets upon him personally but he was not found present at his residence. On 29.1.1998 as provided under Regulation 39 of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "Regulation 1960") the charge sheets were pasted on the office notice board in presence of two class-I officers since the petitioner was continuously absent from duty. Therefore, as per Regulation 39 of Regulations 1960 there is deemed service of charge sheet upon the petitioner.
We have heard learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
For the purpose of delivery of documents, under 1960 Regulations, Regulation 39 provided as under:-
"All communications under this regulation and copies of orders passed thereunder may be delivered personally to the employee if he is attending office; otherwise they shall be sent by registered post to the address noted in the service record. Where such communications or copies of orders cannot be served on him personally or by registered post, copies thereof shall be affixed on the notice board of the office in which the employee is employed and on such affixing such communications and orders shall be deemed to have been properly serviced on him."
In The Bata Shoe Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. D.N. Ganguly, AIR 1961 SC 1158 the Apex Court observed that if the standing orders provides service of charge sheet through display of notice board the same may be served in accordance therewith but in the absence of such provision the proper course would be either to serve charge sheet through registered notice and if the same return unnerved, by publication in local newspaper. Therefore, where the rules permit, the service can be effected upon the employee by affixing the document on the notice Board on 29.1.1998, as has been done in the case in hand, after failing in their attempt to serve charge sheet upon the petitioner by special messengers sent to his residence on 27/28.1.1998. The registered receipt is on record showing that charge sheets through registry were also sent to the petitioner at his residential address on 27.1.1998 which was received by the petitioner on 2.2.1998. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that the charge sheets having served on the petitioner before his retirement, the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him are illegal and contrary to Rule 48 of 1995 Rules.
Moreover, the writ petition is pending since 2002 and there is no interim order in favour of the petitioner, therefore, the amount of recovery imposed upon the petitioner vide orders impugned in the writ petition, must have been realized by the respondents.
No other argument has been advanced to demonstrate any irregularity or illegality in the orders impugned in the writ petition.
In the result, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.