Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1938 (GUJ)

Dineshkumar Somabhai Pargi v. Zonal Manager

2024-10-17

VAIBHAVI D.NANAVATI

body2024
JUDGMENT : (VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI, J.) 1. Heard Mr.Narendra Jain, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Yogi Gadhia, learned advocate appearing for the respondent – authorities. 2. By way of the present petition, the petitioner herein has challenged the order of removal from the service dated 07.03.2014 passed against the petitioner by the respondent no.1 and the order dated 26.02.2015 passed by the respondent no.2 in the appeal preferred by the petitioner. 3. Briefly stated, the petitioner herein belongs to Schedule Tribe (ST) community and joined the service of L.I.C. at Santrampur Branch, Dist. Mahisagar under the Nadiad Division on 03.09.1990 on the post of Higher Grade Assistant (H.G.A.). The petitioner was serving in Salary Savings Scheme Department (S.S.S. Department). The head of the department issued a letter dated 27.06.2011 inquiring about the position of the case. The petitioner replied to the same on 14.07.2011 by giving sufficient explanation. A chargesheet came to be issued on 19.12.2012 against the petitioner by the Senior Divisional Manager, Nadiad Divisional Office of L.I.C., Nadiad. Pursuant to the said chargesheet, the petitioner replied on 09.01.2013, denying the charges levelled against the petitioner and given sufficient explanation. The petitioner was called for hearing on 18.04.2013 and later on, on 26.04.2013 wherein, the petitioner had explained in his favour and urged not to pass an order of removal against the petitioner. On 18.01.2014, a show-cause notice was issued and pursuant thereto, the petitioner replied. Thereafter, the respondent no.2 passed the impugned order of removal from service on 07.03.2014. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 07.03.2014, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which also came to be dismissed by order dated 26.02.2015. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned orders passed by the respondent – authorities, the petitioner has approached this Court and prayed for the following reliefs:- “(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this petition. (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 7/3/2014 passed by the respondent no.2 and same has been confirmed by the respondent no.1 vide order dated 26/2/2015 and be pleased to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all Consequential benefits. (C) During the pendency and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the Orders at Annexure-C & D. (F) Any other relief deemed just and proper may please be granted in the interest of justice.” 5. Mr.Narendra Jain, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the prayers, as prayed for, in the present petition be allowed. It is submitted that the impugned orders are passed without considering the material placed on record by the petitioner. It is submitted that the aforesaid orders are passed in violation of the principles of natural justice by not supplying the materials to the petitioner with regard to the allegations levelled against the petitioner. It is submitted that no monitory loss caused by the petitioner to the respondent – authorities on the basis of merely a wrong adjustment of the collected premium amount and, at the most, it could have been cured by making necessary entries by the superior officer of the petitioner. It is submitted that there is no serious dereliction in the duty on the part of the petitioner and, therefore, the order of removal could not have been passed and the respondent – authorities ought to have imposed lesser punishment instead of an order of removal. It is submitted that the petitioner has not made to give any undue advantage to himself or any other person and the present is not a case of misappropriation. It is submitted that the authorities ought to have appreciated that during the period between 2006 to 2010, the annual audit inspection was carried out and during the every financial year, four time closing was done and every month, work status reports were prepared and upon those reports, the superior officer, A.O., Branch Manager and officer from the divisional office, verified and signed the audit inspection report and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be held to be solely liable for the wrong adjustment. It is submitted that the respondent – authorities ought to have considered that the charge nos.2, 4 and 5 have been dropped and in view thereof, the order of removal could not have been passed. Placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted that the impugned orders dated 07.03.2014 and 26.02.2015 are required to be quashed and set aside. 6. Placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted that the impugned orders dated 07.03.2014 and 26.02.2015 are required to be quashed and set aside. 6. Mr.Yogi Gadhia, learned advocate appearing for the respondent – authorities relied on the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent nos.1 and 2 and submitted that the present petition is not maintainable, as much as the petitioner could have availed the alternative efficacious remedy under the LIC Staff Regulation by way of memorial/review, challenging the order passed by the appellate authority dated 26.02.2015. It is submitted that no interference is called for in the impugned orders passed by the respondent – authorities, the petitioner having removed from services upon serious charges alleged, leading to huge loss to the corporation due to the conduct/act of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner was provided ample opportunities for due compliance of the principles of natural justice and thereupon, the impugned order of removal has been passed by the respondent – authority. The appellate authority has also dealt with all the contentions raised by the petitioner and concurred with the findings of the disciplinary authority. Placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted that the impugned orders having passed in compliance of the principles of natural justice, no interference is called for in the prayers, as prayed for, invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6.1. It is submitted that petitioner was issued chargesheet on 19.12.2012 wherein, the petitioner was charged with 5 charges. The said chargesheet is duly produced at Annexure-A. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted his reply however, the same was not satisfactory and an inquiry was ordered to be initiated to look into the matter. It is submitted that the inquiry officer was appointed, presenting officer was also appointed and the first inquiry was held on 18.04.2013. The petitioner herein accepted charge no.1 to 3 on 18.04.2013. In view thereof, it is settled legal position that once the charges are accepted, no inquiry is necessary. In spite of the aforesaid, fullfledged inquiry was held and the petitioner was offered ample opportunity of hearing and thereafter, the impugned orders have been passed. The petitioner herein accepted charge no.1 to 3 on 18.04.2013. In view thereof, it is settled legal position that once the charges are accepted, no inquiry is necessary. In spite of the aforesaid, fullfledged inquiry was held and the petitioner was offered ample opportunity of hearing and thereafter, the impugned orders have been passed. The show-cause notice was also issued to the petitioner before imposing the punishment of removal and upon providing enough opportunities, the impugned orders came to be passed by the disciplinary authority and the same was duly confirmed by the appellate authority. Reliance is placed on the proceedings of the first hearing of the disciplinary authority wherein, the petitioner was asked as to whether, the petitioner had applied for availing the facility of assisting employee. In response thereto, the petitioner declined and, therefore, the petitioner was given the opportunity to be defended by an assisting employee. It is submitted that the petitioner has produced the documents with respect to the case and the petitioner was further asked whether that was the final list of documents to which, he replied in affirmative. It is submitted that at the first hearing, the petitioner was also given the documents supplied by the presenting officer. The proceedings were also signed by the petitioner. Therefore, considering the events of the first hearing itself, it is submitted that the petitioner having admitted three out of five charges, the petitioner gave his list of documents and stated that he does not want to give any further documents. Subsequently, the matter was posted in second half. It is submitted that on 18.04.2013, the petitioner was asked whether he had inspected the documents supplied by the presenting officer to which, it was replied in affirmative. It was further asked if the petitioner had any objection in admitting the documents, which was answered in negative. 6.2. It is submitted that so far as the charges are considered, the petitioner has again stated that the charges qua charge no.1 are admitted wherein, the adjustment was done amounting to Rs.11,11,938.40/-. It was further admitted that wrong adjustments were done by him as per sheet at exhibit-1. As far as the charge-2 is concerned, the petitioner has admitted the said charge unconditionally. The petitioner has further admitted that many of the adjustments were done in the agency of Mr.H.B. Machchhar, who was holding the joint account with his wife. It was further admitted that wrong adjustments were done by him as per sheet at exhibit-1. As far as the charge-2 is concerned, the petitioner has admitted the said charge unconditionally. The petitioner has further admitted that many of the adjustments were done in the agency of Mr.H.B. Machchhar, who was holding the joint account with his wife. It was also admitted that the deposits were adjusted wrongly amongst the different policy holders. As far as charge – 3 is concerned, the petitioner has admitted that many gap adjustments were done and the deposit lying in one policy cannot be adjusted towards the gap of other policy. It is admitted by the petitioner, accepting the charge completely, that wrong adjustments were made. It is submitted that so far as charge no.4 is concerned with respect to benami agency of Mr.Machchhar, the same was denied. As far as charge no.5 of the joint bank account of Mr.Machchhar with his wife is concerned, the petitioner admitted the existence of the account but, it is stated that the account was opened for depositing the agricultural income of his wife. It is further stated that the petitioner requested the bank to close the said account. Subsequently, the petitioner was asked whether he needs any clarification or any examination of the documents presented by presenting officer to which, it was replied in negative by the petitioner. The petitioner was then asked whether he wants to examine himself as a witness in the case to which, it was answered in negative. 6.3. It is submitted that on 26.04.2013, the proceedings were continued. On that day, the presenting officer submitted that he could not procure any evidence so far as charge no.4 is concerned but, stated that he wanted to establish the charge based on the documents, which are already on record. The petitioner was again asked if he wanted services from the assisting employee but, the same was negated. The petitioner also submitted that the passbook of the bank account in question although, was not a part of the list of documents submitted by the petitioner on the first occasion, the same was taken on record upon the request made by the petitioner. On the same date, the petitioner was asked about the relationship between Mr.Machchhar and his wife but, the petitioner failed to give any proper answer. On the same date, the petitioner was asked about the relationship between Mr.Machchhar and his wife but, the petitioner failed to give any proper answer. Further, the different question was asked by the inquiry officer that whether, the petitioner would like to state anything to which, it was replied in negative. On a categorical question which was put to the petitioner that whether the petitioner wanted to examine any other witness, it was replied in negative. The petitioner was asked if he wanted any clarification or any question to which, he replied in negative. When the petitioner was once again asked that if he wanted to offer himself as a witness in his case to which, it was replied in affirmative. Accordingly, the petitioner was cross-examined by the presenting officer. In the cross-examination, the petitioner admitted that he had gone to the bank twice for closing the account but, the bank was not closing the same. It is submitted that it clearly establishes that the bank account was still operating at the relevant point of time. It is submitted that earlier, during the defence, the petitioner has stated that his wife is free to take her own financial decisions and the petitioner does not know why, she opened the bank account with Mr.Machchhar. In cross-examination, it is stated that because the petitioner was busy in office and was not free, his wife opened the joint account with Mr.Machchhar. The another question was put as to whether, his wife knows Mr.Machchhar to which, it is stated that as the account is opened by her, she may know him. Upon another question that was put as to whether the petitioner has joint account with his wife to which, he replied in negative. It is submitted that lastly, again after the cross-examination was concluded, the inquiry officer asked the petitioner that whether he wanted to state anything further in the matter, in response to the same, it was stated that the joint account was opened with Mr.Machchhar with no wrong intention from the petitioner or his wife’s side. It was further stated that the petitioner had not taken any benefit from the joint account and had no intention of any benami agency as far as charge no.4 is concerned. The petitioner was further asked if he wanted to say anything further in his defence, which was replied in negative. It was further stated that the petitioner had not taken any benefit from the joint account and had no intention of any benami agency as far as charge no.4 is concerned. The petitioner was further asked if he wanted to say anything further in his defence, which was replied in negative. Thereafter, the petitioner was again asked if he wanted to examine any further witness or produce any documentary evidence in the matter to which, it was replied in negative. It is submitted that it was lastly asked, if he had any objection as far as the documentary proof submitted by the presenting officer to which, it was replied in negative. 6.4. In light of the aforesaid, the inquiry officer concluded the inquiry proceedings before asking the last question as to whether, the petitioner was able to freely express his submissions to which, it was replied in affirmative. It is submitted that the submissions and admissions are freely expressed by the petitioner herein without any undue pressure either by the inquiry officer or by the presenting officer and in view thereof, in the aforesaid manner, the inquiry proceedings came to be concluded. 6.5. Reliance is also placed on the said proceedings, which are duly produced at Annexure - R3. It is submitted that the entire inquiry proceedings clearly establish that enough opportunities were granted by the inquiry officer at every stage and the same are duly signed by the petitioner herein. It is submitted that the petitioner was an employee of HGA category and, therefore, it was duly signed by the petitioner upon due verification, reading and understanding the proceedings. 6.6. Placing reliance on the aforesaid, it is submitted that the impugned decisions taken by the respondents are such that the same require no interference. It is submitted that based on the conclusion of the inquiry proceedings, the presenting officer was asked to submit the written submissions and the presenting officer submitted his written submissions on 03.05.2013. In the said submissions, it was admitted that the petitioner was of HGA category and it was his responsibility. However, it was prayed for sympathy in the matter. It is stated that there was no submission on merits and there was only admission of mistakes and that, the case of the petitioner be considered sympathetically. 6.7. In the said submissions, it was admitted that the petitioner was of HGA category and it was his responsibility. However, it was prayed for sympathy in the matter. It is stated that there was no submission on merits and there was only admission of mistakes and that, the case of the petitioner be considered sympathetically. 6.7. Placing reliance on the aforesaid, it is submitted that in the entire manner, the petitioner has admitted most of the charges and in his written submissions also, the lapses or misconduct on the part of the petitioner is clearly established. There is no contention raised in the petitioner’s defense with respect to his submission dated 20.06.2013. It is submitted that the appellate authority has also considered each and every contention raised by the petitioner in the appeal and passed a speaking order, rejecting the appeal of the petitioner. Placing reliance on the aforesaid, it is submitted that the charges levelled against the petitioner herein are grave in nature and the petitioner made adjustment of the amount to the tune of Rs.11,11,938.40/-. It is submitted that the petitioner has admitted the misconduct. It is submitted that the petitioner has tried to justify the same by blaming it on technology, machine, shortage of staff, work pressure etc. however, such defenses cannot be considered in view of the fact that the respondent is a public sector undertaking and is required to follow the existing rules and circulars. 6.8. Placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted that the prayers, as prayed for, in the present petition may not be allowed. 7. Mr.Jain, learned advocate for the petitioner, in rejoinder, reiterated the contentions raised earlier and submitted that the impugned orders dated 07.03.2014 and 26.02.2015 passed by the competent authorities are required to be quashed and set aside. 8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, it emerges that the petitioner herein joined the service of L.I.C. at Santrampur Branch, Dist. Mahisagar under the Nadiad Division on 03.09.1990 on the post of Higher Grade Assistant (H.G.A.). The petitioner was serving in Salary Savings Scheme Department (S.S.S. Department), Head of Department wherein, the petitioner was issued a letter dated 27.06.2011 inquiring about the position of case. The petitioner replied to the same on 14.07.2011. Thereafter, a chargesheet was issued on 19.12.2012 by the Senior Divisional Manager, Nadiad Divisional Office of L.I.C., Nadiad. The petitioner was serving in Salary Savings Scheme Department (S.S.S. Department), Head of Department wherein, the petitioner was issued a letter dated 27.06.2011 inquiring about the position of case. The petitioner replied to the same on 14.07.2011. Thereafter, a chargesheet was issued on 19.12.2012 by the Senior Divisional Manager, Nadiad Divisional Office of L.I.C., Nadiad. The said chargesheet is duly produced at Annexure-A. 9. It is apposite to refer to the said chargesheet, along with the provisional list of documents at page 16, which reads as under:- DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS UNDER REGULATION 39 OF THE LIC OF INDIA (STAFF) REGULATIONS 1960 AND N THE MATTER OF SHRI D.S.PARGI-HGA(A)-SRNO 442399, SANTRAMPUR B.O.(87H) CHARGE SHEET YOU, Shri D.S.Pargi, HGA(A),SRNO 442399-HGA(A)- Santrampur Branch are hereby charged as under: (1) THAT, During the course of your working in SSS department from 07.06.2006 to 30.04.2010, while adjusting SSS Deposits you have made wrong adjustments amounting to RS 11,11,938.40 as per sheet No.B attached herewith. (2) THAT, Refund of deposit vouchers were prepared by you in favour of LIC of India out of which an amount of Rs 57074.00 was utilized towards first premium for cases completed under agency code number 23687H & an amount of Rs 12950.00 utilized towards Renewal premiums. List of such cases attached herewith as per sheet no. A. (3) THAT, you have adjusted gap premiums for Rs 127755.00 as per sheet D (4) THAT, a benami agency of Shri M.B.Machhar-No. 23687H is being run by you. (5) THAT, a joint bank account with agent Shri M.B.Machhar -23687H is being held in the name of your wife Smt.Binaben D Pargi in Bank of Baroda, Santrampur-A/C No.15050100002653-sheet no. 3 attached herewith. (6) THAT, by your aforesaid acts, you have failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty, failed to serve the Corporation honestly and faithfully, acted in a manner detrimental to the interest of the Corporation and prejudicial good conduct and thereby committed a breach of Staff regulations 21, 24 and 29 read with Regulations 39(1) of the LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 for which any one or more of the penalties specified under Regulations 39(1) (a) to (g) of the aforesaid (Staff) Regulations,1960 can be imposed upon you. (7) HOWEVER, before proceeding further in the matter, you are hereby directed to state in writing within a period of ten days from the receipt of this Charge sheet, as to whether or not plead guilty to the charges mentioned above. If you admit the charges, a categorical statement of admission and if not, a statement of denial should be submitted to the undersigned within the stipulated period from the receipt of this Charge Sheet, together with a list of witness (es) through whom as also a list of documents by which you would like to defend yourself. If your written statement as mentioned above is not received by the undersigned, within the period stipulated or if your statement is not found satisfactory, further proceedings in the matter shall ensue without any reference to you in terms of LIC of India(Staff) Regulations, 1960. A provisional list of documents and witnesses by which the aforementioned charges are sought to be sustained are appended hereto as Annexure “A”. DATED AT NADIAD THIS 19th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2012 SR.DIVISIONAL MANAGER To, Shri D.S.Pargi, HGA(A) SRNO 442399-Santrampur 10. The petitioner replied to the said chargesheet on 09.01.2013, which is duly produced at page 17. 11. Upon perusal of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent – authority, it emerges that the respondent – authority has duly followed the principles of natural justice wherein, the petitioner has appeared in the inquiry proceedings, filed reply and also accepted the charge nos.1 to 3. In the written submissions also, the petitioner has accepted the aforesaid charges. 12. It is apposite to refer to paragraphs 6,7,8,9,10 and 11 of the said affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent – authority, which read as under:- “6. I state and submit that the petitioner was issued a charge sheet dated 19.12.2012, (Annexure-A) inter alia enumerating five charges. I state that pursuant to the same he submitted his reply and as his reply was not found satisfactory, an inquiry was ordered to be initiated to look into the matter. I state that accordingly the Inquiry Officer was appointed, the Presenting Officer was also appointed and first inquiry was held on 18.04.2013. I state that in the first hearing on 18.04.2013, the petitioner has accepted charges no.1 to 3. Therefore the first three charges of the total five charges have been accepted by the petitioner in the very first hearing. I state that accordingly the Inquiry Officer was appointed, the Presenting Officer was also appointed and first inquiry was held on 18.04.2013. I state that in the first hearing on 18.04.2013, the petitioner has accepted charges no.1 to 3. Therefore the first three charges of the total five charges have been accepted by the petitioner in the very first hearing. I state that as per the settled legal position once the charges are accepted by the delinquent employee, no inquiry is necessary in the matter. I state that despite the same, the full-fledged inquiry was held and the petitioner was afforded ample opportunities and thereafter findings were given. I state that show cause notice was also issued to the petitioner before imposing upon the punishment and only after providing enough opportunities the order is passed by the Disciplinary Authority and confirmed by the Appellate Authority. I state that the copy of proceedings of the first hearing dated 18.04.2013, is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure - R-1. I state that during the first hearing he was also asked as to whether he had applied for availing the facility of assisting employee. In response to the same he stated in negative. Therefore he was also given an opportunity to be defended by an assisting employee. I further state that he had produced his documents in respect of his case. He was further asked whether this was the final list of documents to which he replied in affirmative. In the first hearing he was also given the documents supplied by the Presenting Officer. The proceedings are also signed by the petitioner. Therefore considering the events of the first hearing itself it is clear that he has admitted three of five charges, he gave his list of documents and he has stated that he does not want to give any further documents. He was supplied the copy of documents submitted by the Presenting Officer. He has further admitted that he has not availed the facility of assisting employee. Subsequently the matter was posted in second half on the same day for further hearing. 7. I state that during the second hearing on 18.04.2013, the petitioner was asked whether he had inspected the documents supplied by the Presenting Officer to which he replied in affirmative. He has further admitted that he has not availed the facility of assisting employee. Subsequently the matter was posted in second half on the same day for further hearing. 7. I state that during the second hearing on 18.04.2013, the petitioner was asked whether he had inspected the documents supplied by the Presenting Officer to which he replied in affirmative. He was further asked if he had any objection in admitting the said documents to which he answered in negative. As far as the charges are considered he has again stated that he admits the charge no.1, he also admits that adjustment was done amounting to Rs.11,11,938.40/- He further admitted that wrong adjustments were done by him as per sheet Exhibit:1. As far as charge no.2 is concerned he admitted the said charge unconditionally. He further admitted that many of the adjustments were done in the agency of Mr. H. B. Machchhar, who was holding joint account with his wife. He also admitted that deposits were adjusted wrongly in different policy holders. As far as charge no.3 is concerned he has admitted that many gap adjustments were done and the deposit lying in one policy cannot be adjusted towards gap of other policy. He lastly admitted that he accepts the charge completely that wrong adjustments were made. As far as charge no.4 regarding benami agency of Mr. Machchhar is concerned he denied the same. As far as charge no.5 of joint bank account of Mr. Machchhar with his wife is concerned, he admitted the existence of account but he stated that said account was opened for depositing the agricultural income of his wife. He has further stated that he has requested the bank to close the said account. Subsequently he was asked that whether he needs any further clarification or any examination of the documents presented by Presenting Officer to which he replied in negative. Then he was asked as to whether he wants to examine himself as a witness in the case to which he answered in negative. Accordingly the matter was then adjourned to 26.04.2013. A copy of proceedings of second hearing dated 18.04.2013 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure – R-2. 8. I state that on 26.04.2013, the proceedings were continued. Then he was asked as to whether he wants to examine himself as a witness in the case to which he answered in negative. Accordingly the matter was then adjourned to 26.04.2013. A copy of proceedings of second hearing dated 18.04.2013 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure – R-2. 8. I state that on 26.04.2013, the proceedings were continued. On that day the Presenting Officer submitted that he could not procure any evidence as far as charge no.4 is concerned but he has stated that wanted to establish the said charge based on documents already on record. Again the petitioner was asked if he wanted services of assisting employee but he stated that he is aware of the provisions but he does not want to avail services of any assisting employee. Subsequently after dialogue between Presenting Officer and inquiry officer, the inquiry officer asked if the petitioner wanted to say anything in his defense. The petitioner submitted the passbook of the bank account in question. Although the said document was not a part of list of documents submitted by the petitioner on the first occasion, the same was taken on record on his request. 9. I state that on 26.04.2013 he was further asked on the relationship between Mr. Machchhar and his wife but no proper answer was given to the said effect by the petitioner. I further state that a different question was asked by the Inquiry Officer whether he would like to state anything else to which he replied in negative. Categorical question was further asked that whether he wanted to examine any other witness in the matter to which he replied in negative. He was further asked on if he wanted any clarification or wanted to ask any question to which he replied in negative. Then he was again asked if he wanted to offer himself as a witness in his case to which he replied in affirmative. Accordingly he was cross-examined by the Presenting Officer. In his cross-examination he has admitted that he has gone to the bank twice for closing the account but the bank is not closing the same. I state that therefore it is clearly established that bank account was still operating at the relevant time. Accordingly he was cross-examined by the Presenting Officer. In his cross-examination he has admitted that he has gone to the bank twice for closing the account but the bank is not closing the same. I state that therefore it is clearly established that bank account was still operating at the relevant time. Earlier during his defence he has stated that his wife is free to take her own financial decision and he does not know on why she opened up the bank account with Mr. Machchhar. While in cross-examination he stated that because he was busy with office job and was not free his wife may have opened joint account with Mr. Machchhar. Then another question was asked as to whether his wife knows Mr. Machchhar to which he stated that as the account is opened she may know him. Another question was asked as to whether he has joint account with his wife to which he replied in negative. Lastly again after the cross-examination was concluded, the Inquiry Officer asked the petitioner that whether he wanted to state anything further in the matter. In his response to the same he stated that the joint account was opened with Mr. Machchhar with no wrong intention from his side or his wife’s side. He has further stated that he has not taken any benefit from the joint account and he had no intention of any benami agency as far as charge no.4 is concerned. He was again asked if he wanted to say anything further in his defence to which he replied in negative. He was again asked if he wanted to examine any further witness or produce any documentary evidence in the matter to which he also replied in negative. Lastly he was asked if he had any objection as far as the documentary proof submitted by the Presenting Officer were concerned to which also he replied in negative. Considering the above, the Inquiry Officer concluded the inquiry proceedings before asking the last question on whether he was able to freely express his submissions to which the petitioner replied in affirmative. He stated that his submissions and admissions are freely expressed under no pressure either by the Inquiry Officer or Presenting Officer. In his manner the inquiry proceedings were concluded. A copy of proceedings dated: - 26.04.2013 are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure – R3. 10. He stated that his submissions and admissions are freely expressed under no pressure either by the Inquiry Officer or Presenting Officer. In his manner the inquiry proceedings were concluded. A copy of proceedings dated: - 26.04.2013 are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure – R3. 10. I state that considering the entire inquiry proceedings it is crystal clear that enough opportunities were granted by the Inquiry Officer to the petitioner at each and every stage. All the proceedings have been signed by the petitioner. He was an employee of HGA category therefore after reading and understanding the proceedings only he signed the same. Considering the above it is crystal clear that inquiry proceedings were held in strict compliance of principles of natural justice and after affording fullest opportunities to the petitioner. I state that as per the settled legal position once the inquiry proceedings are held in compliance of the principle of natural justice, then the decision taken by domestic tribunal cannot be interfered by the Hon’ble Court. If at all there is any lacunae in the decision making process then and only then the same can be interfered. Therefore the present petition is required to be dismissed. 11. I state and submit that based on conclusion of the inquiry proceedings the Presenting Officer was asked to submit his written brief. The Presenting Officer submitted his written submissions on 03.05.2013. A copy of the said written submissions is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure – R-4. I state and submit that the petitioner was also asked to submit his written submissions in the matter. He submitted his submissions on 20.06.2013. A copy of the said written submissions dated 20.06.2013, is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure – R-5. I state and submit that in the said written submissions, he has admitted that he was an HGA and it was his responsibility. He has further prayed for sympathy in the matter. I state that he has not submitted anything on merits but only submitted that he admits the mistakes and his case may be considered sympathetically. I state that considering the entire manner in which the proceedings were held wherein he admitted most of the charges and also his written submissions, it is crystal clear that the petitioner was well aware of the lapses/misconduct on his part, he admitted the same and he prayed for sympathy. I state that considering the entire manner in which the proceedings were held wherein he admitted most of the charges and also his written submissions, it is crystal clear that the petitioner was well aware of the lapses/misconduct on his part, he admitted the same and he prayed for sympathy. Not a single contention is raised in his defense in his submission dated 20.06.2013. I state that in the above peculiar facts, as such no inquiry was necessary in view of the admission of the charges, however, the petitioner was provided fullest opportunities and therefore the present petition on the ground that that is violence of the principles of natural justice in the proceedings is not tenable at law.” 13. Considered the aforesaid explanation rendered by the respondent – authority with respect to the manner and procedure followed by the respondent – authority in the disciplinary proceedings, as referred above. This Court has also perused the statement made by the petitioner with respect to the proceedings dated 18.04.2013 wherein, the petitioner has accepted the charge nos.1 to 3 and denied charge nos.4 and 5. In spite of the aforesaid, the respondent – authority has proceeded with the inquiry and considering the aforesaid charges independently, arrived at the conclusion of passing the order of removal from service. While passing the impugned order, the disciplinary authority has considered the following:- (1) So far as charge no.1 is concerned, it states that while making adjustment of deposits, the petitioner made wrong adjustment of the amount to the tune of Rs.11,11,938.40/-. The petitioner admitted the misconduct. The petitioner has tried to justify the same by blaming it on technology, machine, shortage of staff, work pressure etc. However, the same would have to be considered in accordance with the rules, mechanisms and the circulars, which are to be followed by the petitioner in a Public Sector Undertaking. (2) So far as charge no.2 is concerned, the same relates to an amount of Rs.57,074/- utilized towards first premium of cases completed under Agency Code No.23687H i.e. the agency of Mr.Machchhar and the amount of Rs.12,950/- utilized towards the renewal premium. The petitioner has also admitted the aforesaid charge, which clearly demonstrates that the amounts have been utilized wrongfully. (3) Charge no.3 pertains to adjusting the gap of premiums to the tune of Rs.1,27,755/-. The petitioner has also admitted the aforesaid charge, which clearly demonstrates that the amounts have been utilized wrongfully. (3) Charge no.3 pertains to adjusting the gap of premiums to the tune of Rs.1,27,755/-. The petitioner has admitted that he has adjusted the said gap premium wrongfully against the laid down procedure. In view thereof, the respondent – authority has held that even without considering the charge nos.4 and 5, the punishment of removal imposed upon the petitioner is just and proper. 14. The aforesaid was also the subject matter of challenge before the appellate authority wherein, the appellate authority has also considered all the grounds that are taken by the petitioner herein and confirmed the order passed in the departmental inquiry. While passing the impugned order, the appellate authority has dealt with each and every charge levelled against the petitioner independently and arrived at the aforesaid conclusion. 15. It is apposite to refer to the order passed by the appellate authority wherein, it is concluded that in absence of any new or cogent points in the appeal proceedings, no interference was warranted in the order of removal passed by the disciplinary authority under Regulation 39(1)(f) and 39(1)(c) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The said order reads as under:- “UPON, considering the Appeal dated 24.03.2014, preferred by Shri D.S.Pargi, S.R. No. 4423998, Ex-HGA, Santrampur Branch under Nadiad Division, against the penalty of “Removal from the services of the Corporation” in terms of Regulation 39(1)(f) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 and recovery of Rs 12,39,693.40 in terms of Regulation 39 (1) (c) of the LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960, imposed upon him by Sr Divisional Manager, Nadiad Division, being the Disciplinary Authority, vide Final Order dated 07.03.2014; AND UPON, perusing the records of the disciplinary proceedings, I am satisfied that the procedure prescribed for initiation and completion of disciplinary action against the Appellant under the aforesaid (Staff) Regulations, has been strictly adhered to, and that reasonable opportunity was afforded to him to conduct his defence in respect of the charges contained in the Charge Sheet dated 19.12.2012 issued to him. Further, I find that the findings of misconduct as arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority, are based on evidence on record, and also on the facts and circumstances of the case; AND UPON, perusing the Appeal dated 24.03.2014 preferred by Shri D.S.Pargi, the Appellant, I, the Competent Authority, under Regulation 46 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960, have considered the Appeal and after having perused the relevant records of the case, proceed to dispose off the same as follows:- The Appellant has contended that : The Final Order dated 07.03.2014 issued to him was not a speaking Order. It had failed to discuss the department's case and petitioner's defense. He had explained the circumstances under which the wrong adjustments were made in his reply dated nil to the Charge Sheet. At no point of time, neither the Enquiry Officer nor the Disciplinary Authority made any reference of the circumstances he explained in his previous communication. His reply to the Charge Sheet was forming a part of the material on record. Yet neither in the Show Cause Notice nor in the Final Order, were the arguments put forth by him refuted or contradicted. Hence the silence observed on this vital point by the Disciplinary Authority, was in concurrence for the wrong adjustment he explained in his reply to the Charge Sheet. With regard to the aforesaid contentions of the Appellant, I observe that the Appellant had made wrong adjustments of SSS deposits, amounting to Rs 11,11,938.40 and also adjusted gap premium of Rs 1,27,755/-. In his letter dated 14.07.2011, the Appellant had admitted that he had used the password of Shri L.M.Charpot, Assistant, S.R.No 443807 to make SSS adjustments. In the said letter, the Appellant had enumerated various hardships and difficulties in the working of the SSS Dept of the branch due to the voluminous work load, staff shortage and erratic system support. There was also lot of pressure from the Division to reduce the errors and SSS deposits. The Appellant had admitted that he had made the wrong adjustments, due to the above difficulties faced by him. An employee is guided by manuals and circulars issued by the Corporation from time to time and by the procedures envisaged in the same. There was also lot of pressure from the Division to reduce the errors and SSS deposits. The Appellant had admitted that he had made the wrong adjustments, due to the above difficulties faced by him. An employee is guided by manuals and circulars issued by the Corporation from time to time and by the procedures envisaged in the same. If there is any deviation of the laid down procedures leading to financial loss to the Corporation, employees who are involved are responsible/accountable for the same. Nevertheless, in spite of the difficulties mentioned by the Appellant, the fact remains that his act was not in accordance with the laid down procedures. The hardships faced by the Appellant due to which the wrong adjustments were made by him, amounting to Rs 11,11,938.40 and also adjusted gap premium of Rs 1,27,755/- is not substantiated by evidence or witnesses during the Enquiry Proceedings. The Appellant had nowhere during the Enquiry proceedings stated that his reply to Charge Sheet was not considered and further he failed to produce any documentary evidence or witness during the Enquiry Proceedings to substantiate his contention that he was innocent. The contentions now raised by the Appellant in his aforesaid Appeal, have also been raised in his reply to Show Cause Notice and the same have been dealt in detail while considering his Appeal. Hence his above contentions are not tenable. The Appellant has further contended that : In his reply dated 19.02.2014 to Show Cause Notice, he had clearly mentioned that words used in the Show Cause Notice ‘looking to the gravity of misconduct and misappropriation of the funds with malafide intention’ are baseless inasmuch as there was no reference of misappropriation of funds with malafide intention in the Charge Sheet. This allegation was an afterthought and the penalty of removal was based on the above contention, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The Final Order did not contain any comment on his above pleadings. It also gave concurrence to his contention that the present case was not a case of misappropriation of funds with malafide intention. While replying to the Show Cause Notice dated 18.01.2014, he stated that 1280 cases of wrong adjustment was far from the truth. To support his pleading he had enclosed Annexure I and II along with his reply. It also gave concurrence to his contention that the present case was not a case of misappropriation of funds with malafide intention. While replying to the Show Cause Notice dated 18.01.2014, he stated that 1280 cases of wrong adjustment was far from the truth. To support his pleading he had enclosed Annexure I and II along with his reply. Out of the 1280 cases as per sheet B, the enclosure of Charge Sheet 1) There were 214 cases where adjustments were made to wrong Policy numbers, however the Policy holders were the same. 2) There were 114 cases, where there was a difference of only one digit in master PA code and adjustment PA code, due to wrong keying at cash counter. 3) After deducting 214+114=328 cases from 1280 cases of sheet B, 952 cases remain for wrong adjustment. Out of 952 cases of wrong adjustment, 661 cases pertained to PAC of taluka panchayat. Frequent transfers of taluka panchayat employees, bifurcation of PAC taluka panchayat into more than 50 sub PAC and sub codes, non-updating of invoices and other reasons as explained in his reply to the Charge Sheet, were the root cause of wrong adjustments. Out of 1280 cases only 291 cases were of wrong adjustments, which occurred due to the acute problems in the Branch Office and the non co-operative approach of taluka panchayat. Therefore he was not solely responsible for the wrong adjustment. While fixing accountability the entire situation is required to be analysed properly. He was ready to furnish a list of 661 cases where wrong adjustments were made but these different PACs were bifurcation of main PAC of taluka panchayat. Therefore recovery of Rs 11 lakhs is not all justified. In his reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 18.01.2014, he had emphatically proved that he had not pocketed a single paisa. He had made it clear that he was not a beneficiary of the outcome of wrong adjustment and/or adjustment of gap premiums. If it was not acceptable to the Disciplinary Authority, it would have contradicted his say while preparing the Final Order. However, the Final Order had avoided to make reference to his contention. Therefore the Final Order was not a Speaking Order. It failed to fulfill the expectations of legal obligations. Therefore the Final Order was illegal, unjustified and not sustainable in the eyes of law. However, the Final Order had avoided to make reference to his contention. Therefore the Final Order was not a Speaking Order. It failed to fulfill the expectations of legal obligations. Therefore the Final Order was illegal, unjustified and not sustainable in the eyes of law. The Disciplinary Authority had stated in the Final Order that he had not brought out any new points requiring reconsideration of the proposed penalty as proposed in Show Cause Notice. His enclosing Annexure I and II along with reply to the Show Cause Notice are totally new evidences. The Disciplinary Authority had never felt it necessary to consider the points raised by him since issuance of Charge Sheet. Mere statement that the reply to Show Cause Notice is not found satisfactory, is a misleading statement. With regard to the aforesaid contention of the Appellant, I observe that in his reply dated 19.02.2014 to the Show Cause Notice dated 18.01.2014, the Appellant has contended that there were only 214 cases of wrong adjustment and not 1280 as brought out by the documents (P4) submitted by the Presenting Officer during the Enquiry Proceedings held on 18.04.2013. Further, there were 114 cases where the master PA code and adjustment PA code differ. On scrutiny by him it was found that the master PA code was wrongly keyed in, probably at the cash counter. There was a difference of only 1 digit in the Master PA code and adjusted PA code. Further, 661 cases pertained to PAC of taluka panchayat. Frequent transfers of taluka panchayat employees, bifurcation of PAC taluka panchayat into more than 50 sub PAC and sub codes, non-updating of invoices and other reasons, were the root cause of wrong adjustments. Hence the cases of wrong adjustment would be very less in number and the amount of wrong adjustment would also be less than Rs 11,11,938.40. However all these facts were not brought out during the Enquiry Proceedings, where the Appellant was given ample opportunity to present and defend his case. These facts were not established during the enquiry on the basis of documentary evidence and substantiated with evidence. The onus of producing documents in support of his contentions rested with the Appellant, which he failed to do so. Hence all these facts were not considered in the Final Order issued by the Disciplinary Authority. These facts were not established during the enquiry on the basis of documentary evidence and substantiated with evidence. The onus of producing documents in support of his contentions rested with the Appellant, which he failed to do so. Hence all these facts were not considered in the Final Order issued by the Disciplinary Authority. Bringing out all these facts at the Show Cause Notice stage is clearly an afterthought. Hence his above contentions are not tenable. Further, the Appellant had himself admitted in his letter dated 14.07.2011 that he had made the wrong adjustments, due to the various difficulties faced by him. An employee is guided by manuals and circulars issued by the Corporation from time to time and by the procedures envisaged in the same. If there is any deviation of the laid down procedures leading to financial loss to the Corporation, employees who are involved are responsible/accountable for the same. Nevertheless, in spite of the difficulties mentioned by the Appellant, the fact remains that his act was not in accordance with the laid down procedures. The hardships faced by the Appellant due to which the wrong adjustments were made by him, is not substantiated by evidence or witnesses during the Enquiry Proceedings. Due to the Appellant's action of wrong adjustments, financial loss amounting to Rs 12,39,693.40 was caused to the Corporation, for which he becomes accountable. Hence his contention that he was not a beneficiary to the outcome of the wrong adjustments is not tenable. The Appellant has further contended that : While replying to Charge No 3 of adjusting gap premium for Rs 1,27,755 as per sheet ‘D’ of Charge Sheet, he had explained in detail the circumstances under which adjustment of gap premium was done. If he was wrong or his reply to this charge was not satisfactory or was irrelevant, then its refutation was necessary in the Final Order. But keeping silent on this vital point in Final Order, proves that the Final Order is not a Speaking Order. As regards Charge No 3, though the adjustment of gap premium is not correct, various factors playing a prime role had been mentioned in his reply to Show Cause Notice. These factors have not been considered at all while imposing upon him a penalty of ‘Removal’ as well as recovery of more than Rs 12 lakhs. In such circumstances recovery of Rs 12,39,693.40 is not justified. These factors have not been considered at all while imposing upon him a penalty of ‘Removal’ as well as recovery of more than Rs 12 lakhs. In such circumstances recovery of Rs 12,39,693.40 is not justified. With regard to the aforesaid contention of the Appellant, I observe that during the Enquiry Proceedings held on 18.04.2613, the Appellant had admitted to Charge No 3. He had admitted that wrong adjustments towards gap premiums to the tune of Rs 1,27,755/- were made during his tenure in SSS Dept but it was done with no wrong intentions. As per rules, deposits lying in one Policy cannot be adjusted towards the gap of other policy. An employee is guided by manuals and circulars issued by the Corporation from time to time and by the procedures envisaged in the same. If there is any deviation of the laid down procedures leading to financial loss to the Corporation, employees who are involved are responsible/accountable for the same. Nevertheless, in spite of the difficulties mentioned by the Appellant, the fact remains that his act was not in accordance with the laid down procedures. The hardships faced by the Appellant due to which the wrong adjustments were made by him, is not substantiated by evidence or witnesses during the Enquiry Proceedings. The Appellant had violated the statutory procedures of the Corporation. Due to the Appellant’s action of wrong adjustments, financial loss amounting to Rs 12,39,693.40 was caused to the Corporation, for which he becomes accountable. Being a prudent official of the Corporation, it was expected of him to know the consequences of such actions. Therefore, his above contention is devoid of merit. The Appellant has further contended that : Out of the 5 charges contained in the Charge Sheet, Charge No 2 and Charge No 4 have not been proved and as the Charge No 4 of benami agency is not proved, Charge No 5 co-related with Charge No 4 is dropped. In nutshell, he had been held guilty of Charge No 1 and Charge No 3 only. Therefore his admitting Charge No 2 and Charge No 5 automatically is irrelevant. Therefore referring to his admission of Charge 2 and 5 at any stage is unethical and unwarranted. Had Charge No 4 of benami agency been proved, questions of misappropriation of fund with malafide intention would have arisen. Therefore his admitting Charge No 2 and Charge No 5 automatically is irrelevant. Therefore referring to his admission of Charge 2 and 5 at any stage is unethical and unwarranted. Had Charge No 4 of benami agency been proved, questions of misappropriation of fund with malafide intention would have arisen. As both the Charge No 4 and 5 are now beyond the ambit of consideration, misconduct, misappropriation of fund, maiafide intention etc, the phrases making such allegations used by Disciplinary Authority on and off are holding no water. In view of the above, it is clear that he had not committed any misconduct, nor misappropriated the funds of the Corporation. When there is no misappropriation, it is out of question whether it was with malafide or bonafide intention. Fraud, misappropriation, financial irregularities are liable for penalty of removal, dismissal etc but genuine mistakes beyond control cannot be considered liable for a penalty of removal. With regard to the aforesaid contention of the Appellant, I observe that the Appellant had admitted to Charge No 1, Charge No 2, Charge No 3 during the Enquiry Proceedings held on 18.04.2013. He did not admit to Charge No 4 and Charge No 5 of the Charge Sheet dated 19.12.2012 issued to him. As regards Charge No 1, in his letter dated 14.07.2011, the Appellant had admitted that he had used the password of Shri L.M.Charpot, Assistant, S.R.No.443807 to make SSS adjustments. The Appellant had enumerated various hardships and difficulties in the working of the SSS Dept of the branch due to the voluminous work load, staff shortage and erratic system support. There was also lot of pressure from the Division to reduce the errors and SSS deposits. The Appellant had admitted that he had made the wrong adjustments, due to the above difficulties faced by him. An employee is guided by manuals and circulars issued by the Corporation from time to time and by the procedures envisaged in the same. If there is any deviation of the laid down procedures leading to financial loss to the Corporation, employers who are involved are responsible/accountable for the same. Nevertheless, in spite of the difficulties mentioned by the Appellant the fact remains that his act was not in accordance with the laid down procedures. If there is any deviation of the laid down procedures leading to financial loss to the Corporation, employers who are involved are responsible/accountable for the same. Nevertheless, in spite of the difficulties mentioned by the Appellant the fact remains that his act was not in accordance with the laid down procedures. The hardships faced by the Appellant due to winch the wrong adjustments were made by him, amounting to Rs 11,11,938.40 is not substantiated by evidence or witnesses during the Enquiry Proceedings. Hence the contention is not tenable. During the Enquiry Proceedings held on 18 04 2013, the Appellant had admitted to Charge No 3. He had admitted that wrong adjustments towards gap premiums to the tune of Rs 1,27,755/- were made during his tenure in SSS Dept. He further informed that it was done with no wrong intentions. As per rules, deposits lying in one Policy cannot be adjusted towards gap of other policy. An employee is guided by manuals and circulars issued by the Corporation from time to time and by the procedures envisaged in the same. If there is any deviation of the laid down procedures leading to financial loss to the Corporation, employees who are involved are responsible/accountable for the same. As such the Appellant had violated the statutory procedures of the Corporation. Being a prudent official of the Corporation, it is expected of him to know the consequences of such actions. He cannot absolve himself from the responsibility to act with diligence while discharging his duties. Therefore, his contention is devoid of merit. It is observed that Charge No 1 and Charge No 3 stand proved. Due to the Appellant's action of wrong adjustments, financial loss amounting to Rs 12,39,693.40 was caused to the Corporation, for which he becomes accountable. Hence his above contentions are not tenable. The Appellant has further contended that : The penalty of ‘Removal’ was taken with due consultation with the Vigilance Department. He has stated that the Disciplinary Authority cannot get directions from the superior or Chief Vigilance Officer. If penalty imposed on him was based on the direction from Chief Vigilance Officer then legally it was not tenable. When the Vigilance Officer suggested a penalty of ‘Removal’ it was prior to disproving of Charge No 2 and 4 and dropping of Charge No 5. If penalty imposed on him was based on the direction from Chief Vigilance Officer then legally it was not tenable. When the Vigilance Officer suggested a penalty of ‘Removal’ it was prior to disproving of Charge No 2 and 4 and dropping of Charge No 5. After Show Cause Notice, if the advice of Chief Vigilance Officer had been sought, no penalty of ‘Removal’ would have been imposed. It is a legal position that when some charges are proved but others are not proved, the punishment may be awarded on the basis of charges which are proved. In his case Charge Nos 1 and 3 are proved but rest of the charges are either not proved or dropped. He therefore requested to ensure that the penalty is imposed for the so called proved Charge 1 and 3 only. In doing so, the penalty of ‘Removal’ does not stand valid and legal. It is true that he admitted Charge No 1 and 3 but admission was conditional. Under the circumstances, the wrong adjustments done, were beyond his control. With regard to the aforesaid contention of the Appellant, I observe that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Appellant was Vigilance in nature, as financial irregularities were involved. As such, the advice of the Chief Vigilance Officer was sought in his advisory capacity. The Disciplinary Authority after independently going through the records of the case had imposed the penalty of ‘Removal’ after due application of mind. Hence his contention that the Disciplinary Authority has taken directions from the Chief Vigilance Officer is not tenable. The Appellant has further contended that : After his ‘Removal’ from services of the Corporation, his life is deserted. He is jobless and nobody in his family is a earning member. If recovery of Rs 12,39,693.40 is effected from the dues payable to him, his financial condition will get deteriorated. His family members would have to live on the footpath. They would either have to resort to begging or commit suicide to come out of the quagmire. He belonged to the Scheduled Tribe, coming from very downtrodden family and was always the victim of high handedness of the upper class of society. They had been deprived of social and economical justice decades ago and now also was facing the same exploitation, ill treatment and was being made the scapegoat. He belonged to the Scheduled Tribe, coming from very downtrodden family and was always the victim of high handedness of the upper class of society. They had been deprived of social and economical justice decades ago and now also was facing the same exploitation, ill treatment and was being made the scapegoat. If justice is not delivered to him in time, it would be too late for him and his family to survive. Finally, he has requested to consider his case sympathetically. The material on record would be sufficient enough to exonerate him of all charges and do away with the penalty of removal and recovery of Rs 12,39,693.40. He would be grateful if justice was done and he would be acquitted honourably. With regard to the aforesaid contention of the Appellant, I observe that the aforesaid contentions though deserve sympathy, are extraneous and not relevant to the charges levelled against him. The disciplinary action initiated against the Appellant is a consequence of his own actions and the problems faced by his family, have no relevance to the charges levelled against him. These facts also do not absolve him of the responsibility for the lapses under consideration. They do not alter the facts of the case nor does it mitigate the gravity of his misconduct. Further, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on the basis of evidence on record and not on the basis of his caste. Therefore, the aforesaid contentions are not tenable. With my aforesaid observations and conclusions, I do not find any merit in the contentions raised by Shri D.S.Pargi, in his aforesaid Appeal. The Appellant has not brought forth any new or cogent points in his Appeal, which may warrant any modification in the penalty imposed upon him, by the Disciplinary Authority. The penalty of “Removal from the services of the Corporation” and “Recovery of Rs 12,39,693.40” in terms of Regulation 39(1)(f) and Regulation 39(1)(c), respectively, of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960, imposed on him by the Disciplinary Authority, is just and commensurate with the gravity of misconduct of which he is found guilty. NOW, THEREFORE, I order that the Appeal dated 24.03.2014, preferred by Shri D.S.Pargi, be and is hereby rejected.” 16. Mr.Jain, learned advocate for the petitioner is not able to point out any infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the competent authorities. NOW, THEREFORE, I order that the Appeal dated 24.03.2014, preferred by Shri D.S.Pargi, be and is hereby rejected.” 16. Mr.Jain, learned advocate for the petitioner is not able to point out any infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the competent authorities. It is not in dispute that the impugned orders are passed in accordance with the rules and regulations and upon following cardinal principles of natural justice. 17. It is submitted by Mr.Gadhia, learned advocate for the respondent – authority that the petitioner could also have availed the remedy of memorial, challenging the order passed by the disciplinary authority. However, considering the lapse of time that has occurred, this Court has considered the present petition on its own merits, the petitioner having chosen not to avail the alternative remedy. 18. It is apposite to refer to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lucknow K. Gramin Bank (Now Allahabad, U. P. Gramin Bank) and Anr v. Rajendra Singh reported in AIR 2013 SC 3540 . Paragraphs 7, 12 and 16 of the said judgment, read as under:- 7.It so happened that though the other three employees had denied the charges and the enquiry officer was also appointed inSC3542 their cases (of course after the finding of guilt was recorded by the enquiry officer in the case of the respondents) before the enquiry officer, the said three employees admitted the charges and tendered unconditional apology. They also gave undertaking that they would not commit any such misconduct in future. The enquiry officer recording this, forwarded his report to the Disciplinary Authority and keeping in view that those employees had tendered unconditional apologies with the assurance, as aforesaid, all three of them were inflicted the penalty of reduction of his basic pay by one stage for one year with cumulative effect under Regulation 38(1) (b)(ii) by separate orders dated 25th June, 2008, 26th June, 2008 and 30th June, 2008. This is a major penalty as per the aforesaid Regulations though in the impugned order, High Court has termed it as "minor punishment" 12. Indubitably, the well ingrained principle of law is that it is the Disciplinary Authority, or the Appellate Authority in appeal, which is to decide the nature of punishment to be given to a delinquent employee keeping in view the seriousness of the misconduct committed by such an employee. Indubitably, the well ingrained principle of law is that it is the Disciplinary Authority, or the Appellate Authority in appeal, which is to decide the nature of punishment to be given to a delinquent employee keeping in view the seriousness of the misconduct committed by such an employee. Courts cannot assume and usurp the function of the Disciplinary Authority. In the matter of Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K.Chopra, reported in 1999 (1) SCC 759 : ( AIR 1999 SC 625 ) this principle was explained in the following manner: "22 .......The High Court in our opinion fell in error in interfering with the punishment, which could be lawfully imposed by the departmental authorities on the respondent for his proven misconduct. .....The High Court should not have substituted its own discretion for that the authority. What punishment was required to be imposed, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was a matter which fell exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority and did not warrant any interference by the High Court. The entire approach of the High Court has been faulty. The impugned order of the High Court cannot be sustained on this ground alone. ..… Yet again, in the case of State of Meghalaya and Ors. v. Mecken Singh N. Marak, reported in 2008 (7) SCC 580 : this Court reiterated the law by stating: "14. In the matter of imposition of sentence, the scope of interference is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases. The jurisdiction of the High Court, to interfere with the quantum of punishment is limited and cannot be exercised without sufficient reasons. The High Court, although has jurisdiction in appropriate case, to consider the question in regard to the quantum of punishment, but it has a limited role to play. It is now well settled that the High Courts, in exercise of powers under Article 226, do not interfere with the quantum of punishment unless there exist sufficient reasons therefor. The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless shocking to the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review. In the impugned order of the High Court no reasons whatsoever have been indicated to why the punishment was considered disproportionate. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. The mere statement that it is disproportionate would not suffice. 15 & 16 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 17. In the impugned order of the High Court no reasons whatsoever have been indicated to why the punishment was considered disproportionate. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. The mere statement that it is disproportionate would not suffice. 15 & 16 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 17. Even in cases where the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is found to be shocking to the conscience of the court, normally the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority should be directed to reconsider the question of imposition of penalty. The High Court in this case has not only interfered with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority in a routine manner but overstepped its jurisdiction by directing the appellate authority to impose any other punishment short of removal. By fettering the discretion of the appellate authority to impose appropriate punishment for serious misconducts committed by the respondent, the High Court totally misdirected itself while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226. Judged in this background the conclusion of the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be regarded as proper at all. The High Court has interfered with the punishment imposed by the competent authority in a casual manner and, therefore, the appeal will have to be accepted." 16. This, according to us, would be the harmonious reading of Obettee (P) Ltd. and Rajendra Yadav cases. The principles discussed above can be summed up and summarized as follows:(a) When charge(s) of misconduct is proved in an enquiry the quantum of punishment to be imposed in a particular case is essentially the domain of the departmental authorities; (b) The Courts cannot assume the function of disciplinary/departmental authorities and to decide the quantum of punishment and nature of penalty to be awarded, as this function is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority;(c) Limited judicial review is available to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, only in cases where such penalty is found to be shocking to the conscience of the Court;(d) Even in such a case when the punishment is set aside as shockingly disproportionate to the nature of charges framed against the delinquent employee, the appropriate course of action is to remit the matter back to the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority with direction to pass appropriate order of penalty. The Court by itself cannot mandate as to what should be the penalty in such a case.(e) The only exception to the principle stated in para (d) above, would be in those cases where the co-delinquent is awarded lesser punishment by the disciplinary authority even when the charges of misconduct was identical or the co-delinquent was foisted with more serious charges. This would be on the Doctrine of Equality when it is found that the concerned employee and the co-delinquent are equally placed. However, there has to be a complete parity between the two, not only in respect of nature of charge but subsequent conduct as well after the service of charge-sheet in the two cases. If co-delinquent accepts the charges, indicating remorse with unqualified apology lesser punishment to him would be justifiable. 19. In light of the aforesaid discussion and position of law as referred above, this Court is not inclined to seat in appeal over the findings arrived at by the competent authorities. The findings arrived at by the respondent – authorities require no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 20. For the foregoing reasons, the present petition is not entertained and the same is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged.