JUDGMENT 25.7.2013 - Heard Mr. Biswamohan Pattnaik, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Sailelsh Chandra Samantaray for the opposite parties. The petitioner calls in question the legality and propriety of the order of removal from service by the opposite parties. The case of the petitioner, sans details, is that he was working as Badli Worker in the Branch Office of L.I.C. of India at Bhawanipatna. While the petitioner was continuing as such, the matter was referred to the National Industrial Tribunal for regularization of his service. Pursuant to the decision dated 17.4.1986, the opposite parties decided to give regular appointment to the part time workers, who had worked at least 70 days during the period from 1.1.1982 to 25.5.1985. Thereafter he filed an application before opposite party no.1 for regular appointment in class-IV post. It is stated that he was selected in the test examination held on 30.7.1989 and on the basis of such test appointment order was issued on 28.8.1989 appointing him as Sub-staff (Class-IV). It is further stated that he was prosecuting his studies in Radha Krishna High School, Santpur in the district of Kalahandi. He left the school on 2.8.1984 while prosecuting studies in class-X. Thereafter he obtained his transfer certificate. At the time of making application he had submitted the transfer certificate issued from Radha Krishna High School. While matter stood thus, a notice was issued on 18.4.1990 by the Branch Manager, L.I.C. of India, Bhawanipatna, asking him to submit his reply. It is stated therein that the Divisional Office in their letter dated 6.3.1990 had advised the petitioner to submit his reply within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the said letter. On 8.5.1990 the petitioner submitted his explanation stating therein that he had never submitted any certificate from Krupasindhu High School, Charbahal, but had submitted his School Leaving Certificate No. 44/2 dated 2.2.1985 from Radha Krishna High School, Santpur, wherein he studied up to Class-X. Being not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, opposite party no.1 issued a charge sheet-cum-show cause on 15.5.1990 as per Regulation 39(1) of the L.I.C. of India (Staff) Regulation, 1960 (here-in-after referred to as ‘the Regulation’). On a conspectus of the charge sheet, it is evident that the petitioner submitted an application on 22.7.1989 for the post of Sub-staff enclosing therein the Xerox copy of the transfer certificate No. 47 dated 7.7.1989 from Krupasindhu High School, Charbahal in support of his qualification and date of birth. At the time of interview he had also produced the original certificate and the same was compared with the Xerox copy. On verification, it was found that the transfer certificate was not genuine and was false. By producing such false certificate, the petitioner fraudulently gave wrong information about his age and qualification and thereby misleading the Corporation obtained appointment. The charges were framed on two counts namely, the petitioner failed to maintain absolute integrity and that he acted in a manner prejudicial to good conduct and detrimental to the interest of the Corporation and thus violated Regulation(21) and 39(1) of the Regulation. In reply to the same, he submitted show cause denying the charges leveled against him. In reply a simple ground was taken that he had never submitted any certificate of Krupasinghdu High School, Charbahal, rather he had submitted transfer certificateNo.44/2 dated 2.2.1985 of Radha Krishna High School, Santpur. By order dated 10.7.1990 an Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct an inquiry into the charges framed against the petitioner since the explanation submitted by the petitioner was found not satisfactory. The Enquiry Officer after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner submitted the enquiry report on 5.12.1991 stating therein that the petitioner had submitted Xerox copy of the Transfer certificate of Krupasindhu High School, Charbahal along with his application for the post of Sub-staff. While the matter stood thus, on 27.6.1992 a second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the Senior Divisional Manager (Disciplinary Authority). After considering the aforesaid enquiry report as well as show cause reply, the Senior Divisional Manager (Disciplinary Authority) in his order dated 25.9.1992 imposed the penalty of reduction of two steps in the time scale in terms of Regulation 39(1)(d) of the Regulation. But the Zonal Manager, who was the Reviewing Authority reviewed the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 24.3.1993 and held that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority does not commensurate with the gravity of misconduct on the part of the petitioner. But the Zonal Manager, who was the Reviewing Authority reviewed the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 24.3.1993 and held that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority does not commensurate with the gravity of misconduct on the part of the petitioner. Thereafter he issued show cause notice to the petitioner asking him to show cause as to why the penalty of removal from service shall not be imposed on him. The petitioner submitted a detailed show cause reply on 17.5.1993 before the Zonal Manager. The Zonal Manager by its order dated 28.9.1993 removed the petitioner from service. The Memorial made by the petitioner before the Chairman, LIC of India was also rejected by order dated 18.6.1994(Annexure-16). Pursuant to issuance of notice, opposite parties entered appearance and filed a counter affidavit. A preliminary objection is taken that the writ petition is filed after a lapse of 17 years and as such the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. It is further stated that the petitioner had submitted the Xerox copy of the transfer certificate issued by Krupasindhu High School, Charbahal along with his application for recruitment to the post of Sub staff in support of his age and qualification. But the same was found to be a fabricated one and thereafter a disciplinary proceeding was initiated. The Disciplinary Authority after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, imposed penalty of reduction of 2 steps in the time scale in terms of Regulation 39(1)(d) of Regulation. But then the Reviewing Authority not being satisfied with the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority, issued show cause notice to the petitioner for enhancement of the punishment. After considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and taking a holistic view of the matter, the Zonal Manager, who was the Reviewing Authority, removed the petitioner from the services. On perusal of paragraph-18 of the writ application, we are satisfied that the petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause in approaching this Court. He was suffering from various diseases. Further more his only son was attacked by sickle cell disease since June, 2002 and was being treated in different hospitals. While matter stood thus, his son died on 16.1.2009. The petitioner belongs to lower rung of the society. Under such circumstances, it is not expected from a person like the petitioner to approach the Court with utmost promptitude. Further more his only son was attacked by sickle cell disease since June, 2002 and was being treated in different hospitals. While matter stood thus, his son died on 16.1.2009. The petitioner belongs to lower rung of the society. Under such circumstances, it is not expected from a person like the petitioner to approach the Court with utmost promptitude. In paragraph-15 of the writ application it is further stated that several other persons, who were indulged in such type of misconduct, faced disciplinary proceedings. Two of such persons are Ramanath Lakra and Stephen Khalko. In the disciplinary proceeding initiated against Ramanath Lakra , punishment of reduction of pay by one stage permanently was awarded against him. So far as Stephen Khalko is concerned, the basic pay was reduced by two stages. According to the petitioner, he is similarly circumstanced with that of Ramanath Lakra and Stephen Khalko in as much as the charges leveled against them are almost identical. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties submits that since the charges framed against the petitioner are serious, the Zonal Manager, who was reviewing authority, was quite justified in removing the petitioner from service and the punishment awarded against the petitioner commensurate to the gravity of the charges. We are at a loss to understand the submission made by the opposite parties. The L.I.C. of India is a Government of India Undertaking. It is expected of an ideal employer to treat its employees equally, who are on similar footing. Treating the employees according to its whim or caprice is least expected from an ideal employer. Two employees, who were facing charges identical to that of the petitioner, were awarded lesser punishment. Thus, there is no rhyme or reason as to why the petitioner would be awarded a severe punishment like removal from service. In Akhilesh Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand and others, 2007(8) Supreme 713 , the Hon’ble apex Court held that delinquent officers similarly situated should be dealt with similarly provided the charges leveled against the employees are identical and it is desirable that they should be dealt with similarly. The ratio of the case in Akhilesh Kumar Singh applies with full force to the facts of the present case. The ratio of the case in Akhilesh Kumar Singh applies with full force to the facts of the present case. In view of the analysis made above, we are of the opinion that the petitioner should have been similarly dealt with as has been done by the management in the cases of Ramanath Lakra and Stephen Kalko. We set aside the order of removal from service of the petitioner vide Annexure-13 and the order of the Chairman, LIC of India vide Annexure-16. We direct the opposite parties to consider the question of awarding such other punishment against the petitioner as would deem fit and proper. We make it clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled to back wages for the period he was out of service. The Zonal Manager (Reviewing Authority) shall take a decision within a period of three months from the date communication of this order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules. Petition disposed of.