The Allahabad High Court, in a judgment delivered by Justice J.J. Munir, has quashed the removal of a Development Officer of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC), holding that there was a “wholesome denial of opportunity of hearing” which vitiated the entire disciplinary proceedings. The Court found that the inquiry was conducted without proper service of documents and without any supporting evidence, in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Background
Sharda Prasad Singh was appointed as a Development Officer in LIC on 16 May 2012 and posted at the Satellite Office in Jiyanpur, Azamgarh. On 10 June 2021, the LIC’s Senior Divisional Manager at Gorakhpur passed an order removing him from service on the ground of unauthorized absence from duty. The charges alleged unauthorized absence for 445 days between 02.01.2019 and 31.03.2020, and intermittent absences for 50 days between October and December 2018.
Following the disciplinary inquiry, Singh’s departmental appeal and memorial were rejected by the Zonal Manager, LIC, Kanpur on 31 January 2023, and by the Chairman, LIC, Mumbai on 20 June 2023, respectively.
Legal Issues
- Whether the petitioner was denied a reasonable opportunity of defence due to non-service of the charge-sheet and inquiry notices.
- Whether the inquiry proceedings were legally valid in the absence of any witnesses or admissible evidence.
Petitioner’s Arguments
Senior Advocate Vijay Kumar Singh, appearing for the petitioner, argued that no charge-sheet or inquiry notices were ever served on Singh, thereby depriving him of the opportunity to participate in the proceedings. It was further contended that the inquiry was conducted ex parte and no witnesses were produced to prove the seven charges against him.
Respondents’ Arguments
Counsel for LIC, Mr. Mohan Srivastava, submitted that the petitioner was duly served with the charge-sheet through registered post, personal delivery, notice board publication, and email. He argued that Singh had deliberately avoided the proceedings to create a basis for challenging the inquiry.
Court’s Analysis
The Court rejected the LIC’s contentions and noted:
“This is a case where the denial appears to be wholesome and complete. It is not a case where there is a facet of denial of opportunity, but a denial the whole way.”
The Court held that despite detailed averments by the respondents, no documentary evidence such as postal receipts, email records, or witness statements were filed to establish actual service of the charge-sheet or inquiry notices.
The Court also held that no witnesses were examined to prove the charges, which renders the inquiry invalid:
“The charges were found to be proved without there being any actual adjudication by the Inquiry Officer.”
Quoting from the Supreme Court’s judgment in T.P. Lal Srivastava and Satyendra Singh v. State of U.P., the High Court reaffirmed that even in ex parte inquiries, evidence must be led and documents must be proved by witnesses.
Decision
The Court quashed the impugned orders dated 10.06.2021, 31.01.2023, and 20.06.2023. It directed that:
- The petitioner shall be reinstated forthwith and paid current salary/remuneration from the date of communication of the Court’s order.
- The LIC may initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings from the stage of the charge-sheet, after giving due notice.
- If fresh proceedings are not initiated, the petitioner will be entitled to 50% of his dues for the period he remained out of employment.
- In both scenarios, he shall retain continuity in service and seniority.
Case Title: Sharda Prasad Singh vs Union of India and Others
Case No.: Writ-A No. 13137 of 2023
