Order : 1. Since above titled both petitions involve common questions of law and fact, they are being decided through this common order. The petitioner challenges the punishment orders dated 12.06.1999 (Annex.10 in SBCWP No.352/2002) and 21.03.2000 (Annex.12 in SBCWP No.2734/2003). He also seeks the quashing of orders dated 15.12.1999 (Annex.12 in SBCWP No.352/2002) and 31.08.2000 (Annex.14 in SBCWP No.2734/2003), through which appeals against the punishment orders were dismissed. Additionally, the petitioner seeks to annul the order dated 24.11.2000 (Annex.14 in SBCWP No.352/2002), which dismissed his petition against the orders dated 12.06.1999 and 15.12.1999. 2. The relevant facts, stripped of unnecessary details, as pleaded in Petition No.352/2002, are as follows: The petitioner was initially appointed as a Peon on 18.09.1987 and was later promoted to the position of Assistant on 13.08.1997. A charge sheet dated 23.06.1998 (Annex.1) was served upon the petitioner, alleging that an FIR had been lodged against him for gambling and that he had misbehaved with his seniors and colleagues. In response, the petitioner submitted his reply on 15.07.1998 (Annex.2). 2.1. Upon conducting an inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted a report (Annex.7) finding the charges against the petitioner to be substantiated. Consequently, a show-cause notice dated 01.05.1999 (Annex.8) was issued, to which the petitioner submitted his reply (Annex.9). Considering all available material, the Disciplinary Authority issued an order dated 12.06.1999 (Annex.10), imposing a penalty of reducing the petitioner’s basic pay by one stage. 2.3. In Writ Petition No.2734/2003, another charge sheet dated 12.03.1999 (Annex.3) was issued against the petitioner, alleging physical assault on another employee and further instances of misconduct. Following due inquiry, a punishment order dated 21.03.2000 was passed, reducing the petitioner’s basic pay by one stage in the time-scale. The petitioner’s appeal against this order was dismissed by an order dated 31.08.2000. 2.4. Hence, these petitions have been filed. 3. The respondents, inter alia, assert that the petitioner was caught red-handed by the police for gambling and was taken into custody following the lodging of the FIR. Subsequently, a charge sheet was issued after adhering to the due process of law. The Inquiry Officer, after considering the entire record, the petitioner’s stance, and the evidence presented, found the petitioner guilty of the charges. The Disciplinary Authority, after reviewing all material, including the petitioner’s reply, imposed the impugned punishments. The Appellate Authority upheld the punishments, deeming it appropriate and commensurate with the misconduct. The Inquiry Officer, after considering the entire record, the petitioner’s stance, and the evidence presented, found the petitioner guilty of the charges. The Disciplinary Authority, after reviewing all material, including the petitioner’s reply, imposed the impugned punishments. The Appellate Authority upheld the punishments, deeming it appropriate and commensurate with the misconduct. The impugned orders, they thus contend, were passed in accordance with the law and no interference by this court is warranted. 4. In light of the foregoing, I have heard the rival contentions and perused the case files. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has broadly emphasized the grounds raised in the writ petition. He contends that the case in which the petitioner was arrested does not constitute misconduct under the relevant conduct rules, as the alleged offense occurred outside office hours and beyond office premises. 5.1. Furthermore, the petitioner asserts that he was denied a reasonable opportunity to defend himself, thereby breaching the principles of natural justice. He argues that the Inquiry Officer proceeded as if the charges were already proved based on an alleged admission of guilt by the petitioner, despite no witnesses being examined on behalf of the department. 5.2. Additionally, the Disciplinary Authority, without providing any rationale for disregarding the petitioner’s reply, imposed the punishments. Regarding the second charge sheet, the petitioner claims that he was not provided with the preliminary inquiry report and was denied a change of defense assistant, forcing him to defend himself. The Inquiry Officer, he argues, merely recorded that various witnesses’ testimonies substantiated the charges against him. 5.3. The petitioner further contends that the Appellate Authority failed to consider any of his submissions and did not pass a reasoned order in either case. 5.4. In opposition, learned counsel for the respondents reiterates the defense outlined in their reply. 6. I shall now proceed to render my opinion on the rival contentions in the subsequent part of this order. 7. First and foremost, reference be had to the inquiry reports in both petitions, translated versions (as provided by official translator of High Court) of which are reproduced below: Inquiry Report in SBCWP No.352/2002 "Disciplinary action under Regulation 39 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations 1960. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Disciplinary action against P.C. Sogra, Assistant, Pay No. 146901, Branch Office, Pratapgarh. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Disciplinary action against P.C. Sogra, Assistant, Pay No. 146901, Branch Office, Pratapgarh. :- Enquiry Report :- By the order of the Senior Divisional Manager dated 6th August, 98, I was appointed as the Enquiry Officer in the said Inquiry Proceedings and Shri Bhagwan Singh Administrative Officer, Divisional Office, Udaipur was appointed as the Presenting Officer. The first date for disciplinary proceedings against Shri P.C. Sogra was fixed as 26.08.98, in which all the documents mentioned in the charge sheet were given to the delinquent employee by the Presenting Officer and the charge sheet was read out to him, along with this the Enquiry Officer asked the delinquent employee about the requirements of defence assistant and other documents, thereafter the next date of hearing was fixed as 25.09.98, under which the delinquent employee was asked for information regarding the requirement of defence assistant, but as the delinquent employee gave the information later, the dates of hearing were fixed on 06.11.98 and 19.11.98, yet as he did not give the information, the last chance was given and the date of hearing was fixed on 28.11.98. During hearings held on 28.11.98, 07.12.98 and 21.12.98, arguments were made on various issues. Thereafter the final hearing was held on 04.02.99 at Pratapgarh Branch Headquarters where the delinquent employee is posted. Photocopies of the following documents mentioned in the charge sheet were given to the delinquent employee during the first hearing :- 1. P.--1 Letter dated 13.09.97 of the employees of Pratapgarh Branch Office 2. P.--2 Office Note dated 13.09.97 of Assistant Administrative Officer, Pratapgarh 3. P.--3 Letter from various employees of Branch Office written to Branch Management. 4. P.--4 Office Note dated 13.09.97 of Shri D.L. Parmar, U.D.A. Pratapgarh given to Branch Manager. 5. P.--5 F.I.R. No. 144/97 dated – 18.04.97. Apart from this, photocopies of the following documents demanded by the delinquent employee were given:- 1. D.--1 Copy of attendance register for the month of September, 97. 2. D.--2 Copy of the casual leave register of Shri Santosh Gupta. 3. D.--3 Copy of the casual leave application of Shri Santosh Gupta dated 18.09.97. Details regarding the allegations mentioned in the charge sheet by the delinquent employee during the debate:- 1. Charge No. - 1, partly admitted by the delinquent employee. 2. Charge No. -2, Admitted by delinquent employee. 3. 3. D.--3 Copy of the casual leave application of Shri Santosh Gupta dated 18.09.97. Details regarding the allegations mentioned in the charge sheet by the delinquent employee during the debate:- 1. Charge No. - 1, partly admitted by the delinquent employee. 2. Charge No. -2, Admitted by delinquent employee. 3. Charge No. -3, The delinquent employee admitted and stated that he did not consider it appropriate to give information as he was in custody for less than 40 hours. 4. Charge No. -4, Admitted by delinquent employee. 5. Charge No. - 5, The delinquent employee did not say anything in this regard. Hence, it is self-evident that it was accepted. During his lengthy arguments, the delinquent employee did not raise any specific argument in response to the charges. He only kept on arguing regarding the irregularities going on in the branch and based his arguments on such irregularities only while he was repeatedly asked to raise his argument in relation to the allegations levelled against him. But he only argued that all the allegations have been made since he had tried to expose the said irregularities going on in the branch. The delinquent employee was also repeatedly asked by the presenting officer and the inquiry officer to argue in relation to the allegations, but even then he did not present any proof or evidence. He only stated that the persons whom he had referred to in the arguments should be produced in evidence on behalf of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, but the presenting officer did not lead any evidence on behalf of the Life Insurance Corporation of India. Shri P.C. Sogra, in his review has only reiterated the arguments and has not stated anything in support of the defence of the charges. Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that sections 21, 24 and 30 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960, Section 30 (39) are applicable to the delinquent employee. Therefore, action can be taken against the delinquent employee as per clauses A to G under sub-section 1 of section 39 of the Regulations, 1960." Sd/- (D.L. Kabra) Manager Encl.: As above. Inquiry Report in SBCWP No.2734/2003 Life Insurance Corporation of India Divisional Office:- Udaipur Disciplinary action against Shri P.C. Sogra, Assistant, Pay No. - 146901, Pratapgarh Branch under Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations 1960, Regulation 39. Inquiry Report in SBCWP No.2734/2003 Life Insurance Corporation of India Divisional Office:- Udaipur Disciplinary action against Shri P.C. Sogra, Assistant, Pay No. - 146901, Pratapgarh Branch under Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations 1960, Regulation 39. Enquiry Report A charge sheet Dated 12.03.99 was issued by the competent authority to Mr. Padamchand Sogra. The charge sheet contained the following allegations:- That Mr. Padamchand Sogra assaulted and abused Mr. Rakesh Rajora, Asst., in the office premises at about 10.00 am on 13.02.99. That Shri Padmachand Sogra threatened other employees working in the Branch Office, Pratapgarh, who were present at the time of the incident, and used abusive language in the office. The reply to the above charge sheet given by Shri Padamchand Sogra was received at the Divisional Office, Udaipur on 29.04.99. (Exhibit D-1) By order dated 02.06.99, the competent authority appointed me as the Enquiry Officer in the above case. By an order dated 02.06.99, the competent authority appointed Shri Bhagwan Chellaramani, Administrative Officer (Law and Housing) as the Presenting Officer to represent the management during the inquiry. On 18.06.99, a notice under my signature was issued to the delinquent employee, Mr. Padamchand Sogra, to attend the hearing in my chamber in the Divisional Office at 10.30 am on 28.06.99 and obtain permission from the competent authority if he needs the assistance of a colleague to defend himself. A copy of the same was sent to the Presenting Officer, Shri Bhagwan Chellaramani. The first hearing commenced in my chamber on 28.06.99 at the scheduled time. On this day, the delinquent employee Shri Padmachand Sogra, Presenting Officer Shri Bhagwan Chelaramani, Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Stenographer and myself were present. During the hearing, both the charges mentioned in the charge sheet were read over to Shri Padmachand Sogra by the Presenting Officer and copies of 24 documents as mentioned in the charge sheet were provided. (Exhibits P-1 to P-24) The delinquent employee Shri Padamchand Sogra was asked as to when he would submit the consent letter of his defence assistant and the letter of appointment issued by the competent authority. In response thereto, the delinquent employee stated that he would submit the appointment letter of his defence assistant within 15 days. The delinquent employee was also asked to submit the list of his witnesses and documents. In response thereto, the delinquent employee stated that he would submit the appointment letter of his defence assistant within 15 days. The delinquent employee was also asked to submit the list of his witnesses and documents. In response, the delinquent employee stated that he would submit the same on the next hearing. The delinquent employee was then asked by me regarding charges No. 01 and 02, whether he admits them, he refused to admit the charges and asked for the Preliminary Enquiry Report and Establishment Manual Volume Appendix- 02 to be provided. When I asked what document is the Establishment Manual Volume Appendix-02, which deals with inquiry proceedings, the delinquent employee could not give any satisfactory answer. The hearing was completed on 28.06.99 and the next hearing was scheduled for 17.07.99. Since all the witnesses are working in the branch office, Pratapgarh, the competent officer ordered to hold the hearing on 17.07.99 in the branch Pratapgarh itself. The delinquent employee was informed about this through my letter dated 06.07.99. By another letter dated 10.07.99, the defence assistant of the delinquent employee, Shri Mahesh Sanchora, U.D.A., Branch, CAB, Udaipur was informed by the competent authority about his appointment and was asked to remain present at the branch office Pratapgarh during the hearing on 17.07.99. The next hearing was scheduled at the branch, Pratapgarh on 17.07.99, but the delinquent employee did not appear in the proceedings and no information was received from him. The next hearing was scheduled at the branch office, Pratapgarh on 29.07.99 at 10.00 am, which was communicated to the delinquent employee vide letter dated 17.07.99. The proceedings were commenced at 11.00 am on 29.07.99. In the proceedings, the defence assistant of the delinquent employee Shri Sogra, Shri Mahesh Sanchora was also present, but as soon as the proceedings started, the delinquent employee gave me a letter to change his defence assistant, Shri M.A. Kane, who is working in Ajmer Division. The delinquent employee Shri Sogra did not even inform his defence assistant Shri Sanchora that he did not want to take his services. Whereas the defence assistant was appointed by the competent authority on the request of the delinquent employee. Not remaining present on 19.07.99 and giving an application to change the defence assistant who is working in Ajmer Division office as soon as the hearing started on 29.07.99 was done deliberately to delay the proceedings. Whereas the defence assistant was appointed by the competent authority on the request of the delinquent employee. Not remaining present on 19.07.99 and giving an application to change the defence assistant who is working in Ajmer Division office as soon as the hearing started on 29.07.99 was done deliberately to delay the proceedings. Whereas his defence assistant, who was appointed on the request of the delinquent employee was available to provide his services. The proceedings of 29.07.99 could not be conducted because the delinquent employee insisted for changing the defence assistant, for which he had submitted an application on the same day. The proceedings of 29.07.99 were concluded at 5.00 pm and the next hearing was scheduled on 16.09.99 at the Pratapgarh branch. On the application of the delinquent employee for change of defence assistant, the Competent Authority vide its letter dated 02.08.99 informed that since Mr. Mahesh Sanchora was appointed as a defence assistant as desired by the delinquent employee and his availability is also there, therefore, there does not appear any justification for changing the defence assistant at this time, and therefore, the delinquent employee was expected to cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the proceedings by extending his co-operation in the proceedings. On 16.09.99 at 11.45 a.m. the proceedings resumed at the branch office, Pratapgarh. As soon as the proceedings started, the delinquent employee again insisted to change his defence assistant, whereas the competent officer had rejected the request of the delinquent employee vide his letter dated 02.08.99. The delinquent employee again demanded for providing Establishment Manual Appendix-02. Since the delinquent employee was not in a position to clearly state which document Establishment Manual Appendix-02 is and what is its relation with the proceedings, therefore, this so-called Establishment Manual could not be provided to him. The delinquent employee himself did not know about this Establishment Manual. He merely wanted to make such a demand which would cause unnecessary delay in the proceedings. The Presenting Officer asked for producing witnesses, which was allowed by the Enquiry Officer. The following witnesses were produced in the proceedings:- Sr. No. Name Post Name 1 Sh. Awakash Singhvi Assistant 2 Sh. Narendra Kumar Soni Assistant 3 Sh. Rajesh Kasodniya Assistant 4 Sh. Jagdish Chand Sub-Staff 5 Sh. Rakesh Rajera Assistant 6 Sh. Rajendra Lahoti Assistant 7 Sh. Arvind Jain Assistant 8 Sh. Omprakash Gurjar Assistant 9 Sh. The following witnesses were produced in the proceedings:- Sr. No. Name Post Name 1 Sh. Awakash Singhvi Assistant 2 Sh. Narendra Kumar Soni Assistant 3 Sh. Rajesh Kasodniya Assistant 4 Sh. Jagdish Chand Sub-Staff 5 Sh. Rakesh Rajera Assistant 6 Sh. Rajendra Lahoti Assistant 7 Sh. Arvind Jain Assistant 8 Sh. Omprakash Gurjar Assistant 9 Sh. Dungar Singh Rawat Sub-Staff 10 Sh. Umesh Chand Salvi Sub-Staff 11 Sh. Amit Somani Assistant 12 Smt. Abha Lahoti Cashier 13 Sh. Govind Singh Chundawat Assistant 14 Sh. Bharat Lal Assistant Statements of all the witnesses were recorded one by one and the delinquent employee was given the opportunity to cross- examine each witness. But the delinquent employee repeatedly stated that he would call all the witnesses again only when he gets the defence assistant of his choice, which demand was not proper and the same was made only to delay the proceedings. All the witnesses confirmed in their statements that the delinquent employee Shri Sogra had beaten up Shri Rakesh Rajora, the Assistant. The statements of the witnesses also revealed the fact that Shri Sogra often used to abuse and threaten in the office. The proceedings were terminated on 16.09.99. Although the proceedings were terminated on 16.09.99, yet the competent officer asked me vide letter dated 20.09.99 to once again initiate the proceedings so that Shri Sogra can present his defence. As per the instructions of the competent officer, the proceedings were again held in my chamber in the divisional office on 06.10.99, information of which was sent to the delinquent employee vide letter dated 28.09.99. The hearing was started in my chamber at 11.35 am on 06.10.99. At the very beginning of the hearing, it was told to the delinquent employee that although the proceedings were concluded on 16.09.99, but the competent officer has asked to seek his defence/witness etc. once again, therefore, you can produce your defence/witness. On this, the delinquent employee again repeated the same thing that he had asked me for the law, which mentions all those things that how the inquiry proceedings should be made, how the inquiry officer will inquire, what will be the rights of the delinquent employee, what are the duties / rights of the Presenting Officer, without knowing all these legal things, he cannot produce his defence. The delinquent employee also said that the defence assistant is a departmental service employee and whenever he needs, he can apply to change the defence assistant during the proceedings. Whereas on the application of the delinquent employee, the competent officer had granted permission to Mr. Mahesh Sanchora U.D.A., Branch CAB, Udaipur to be his defence assistant, which the competent officer had informed the delinquent employee vide letter dated 09.07.99. Despite repeated requests, the delinquent employee could not present any witness / document in his defense and started saying that until Establishment - 2 Manual is made available to him, he cannot present his defense. All these things reveal the intention of the delinquent employee to unnecessarily prolong the proceedings. The hearing was completed on 06.10.99. The Presenting Officer was asked to submit his written statement. This written statement was submitted on 18.10.99. Exhibit No. P-27 On 20.10.99, certified copy of the aforesaid written statement was sent to the delinquent employee Shri Sogra and he was asked to submit his written statement within 15 days of receipt of the same. The delinquent employee in his letter dated 02.11.99 which was received on 08.11.99, apologized for the delay in submitting the reply and asked for 15 more days time which was granted by letter dated 17.11.99. Finally the delinquent employee gave his written statement dated 27.11.99 (one month and seven days later which I received on 04.12.99) Exhibit No. D-3. In the above case, I have studied the allegations made in the charge sheet, the reply of the delinquent employee Exhibit No. D-1 and D-3, Exhibit No. P-1 to P-27 produced by the management and the testimonies given by the above-mentioned witnesses. On this basis, I come to the conclusion that:- Charge No. - 01:- Mr. Padamchand Sogra assaulted and abused Mr. Rakesh Rajora, Asst., in the branch office. The witnesses in this regard, Mr. Avkash Singhvi, Narendra Kumar Soni in their testimonies categorically stated that they saw Mr. Sogra assaulting Rakesh Rajora. In addition, vide Exhibit No. 1 to 24, every employee has confirmed in their testimonies that on 13.02.99 at about 10.00 am, Mr. Rakesh Rajora was being rescued by other office staff from Mr. Padamchand Sogra, who was abusing him after beating him. Undoubtedly, charge no. 1 is proved against Shri Padmachand Sogra. Sogra assaulting Rakesh Rajora. In addition, vide Exhibit No. 1 to 24, every employee has confirmed in their testimonies that on 13.02.99 at about 10.00 am, Mr. Rakesh Rajora was being rescued by other office staff from Mr. Padamchand Sogra, who was abusing him after beating him. Undoubtedly, charge no. 1 is proved against Shri Padmachand Sogra. Charge No. --02:- This allegation is clear and corroborated from the written statements in Exhibit No. 1 to 24 and the testimonies of witnesses Shri Rajesh Kasodniya, Jagdish Chandra, Rajendra Lahoti, Arvind Jain, Omprakash Gurjar, Umeshchand Salvi and Amit Somani that Shri Sogra threatened and uttered abusive words to the staff present in the office on 13.02.99 at about 10.00 a.m. Shri Sogra has also sought ten days' time after 07.12.99 to submit his reply. Again in his written reply (27.11.99) and the reasons given are not logical. Shri Sogra's only objective is not to let the proceedings concluded. The competent officer provided the delinquent employee another opportunity to produce his witnesses even after the completion of the hearing. Still the delinquent employee did not produce his defence/witnesses. Throughout the proceedings, various unreasonable demands were made which caused disruption in the proceedings and prevented the proceedings from being concluded for a long period of time. Shri Padamchand Sogra is thus guilty of contravention of Regulations 21 and 24 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 and is liable to be proceeded against under Regulation 39. The following documents are enclosed with this report:- 1. Copy of charge sheet dated 12.03.1999. 2. Copies of Exhibit Nos. P-1 to P-27. 3. Copies of Exhibit Nos. D-1 to D-3. 4. Copy of order of the competent authority dated 02.06.99 appointing Shri S.S. Verma as Enquiry Officer and Shri Bhagwan Chellaramani as Presenting Officer. 5. Copies of the testimony given by the witnesses mentioned above. 6. Copies of all the enquiry proceedings mentioned above. Place:- Udaipur Date:-14.12.99 Sd/- (S.S. Verma) Inquiry Officer 8. A perusal of these reports reveals that the Inquiry Officer recorded his findings after duly considering all available material and evidence. 9. These inquiry reports were reviewed by the Disciplinary Authority, which, upon perusal thereof, in my view, rightfully passed the punishment orders, as they are self-explanatory and based on the inquiry findings. 10. A perusal of these reports reveals that the Inquiry Officer recorded his findings after duly considering all available material and evidence. 9. These inquiry reports were reviewed by the Disciplinary Authority, which, upon perusal thereof, in my view, rightfully passed the punishment orders, as they are self-explanatory and based on the inquiry findings. 10. In fact scrutiny of enquiry reports vis-à-vis impugned punishment reflects that imposition of penalty is/was proportionate to the severity of the misconduct. Misconduct of such nature—engaging in gambling, misbehaving with colleagues, and physically assaulting another employee—warrants stringent disciplinary action to maintain workplace discipline and uphold institutional integrity. The petitioner appealed to the Appellate Authority, which affirmed the punishment with detailed reasoning. The Appellate Authority, while affirming the punishment, provided reasoning and found no merit in the petitioner’s challenge. 11. The argument that the alleged gambling incident occurred outside office hours is untenable. Employees of any organization, particularly one dealing with public trust and financial security, are expected to uphold ethical conduct at all times. Moreover, the physical assault and intimidation of colleagues, as substantiated by multiple witness testimonies, demonstrate a pattern of indiscipline and workplace hostility that cannot be condoned. 12. The petitioner’s claims of procedural irregularities are without substance. He was provided every opportunity to defend himself but instead sought to delay proceedings through frivolous demands, such as repeatedly requesting a change of defense assistant and insisting on the provision of irrelevant documents. 13. The Inquiry Officer meticulously recorded witness testimonies, and the findings were based on substantial evidence rather than mere conjecture. Likewise, the appellate authority's decision to uphold the punishment was neither arbitrary nor unjustified. It was a measured and well-reasoned affirmation of the necessity to impose disciplinary measures to deter such misconduct in the future. A lenient approach in such matters would undermine the disciplinary framework and set a dangerous precedent, eroding institutional authority. 14. In view of the overwhelming evidence against the petitioner and the due process followed at every stage, there exist no grounds for judicial indulgence. 15. As an upshot, I find no grounds for interference. 16. Accordingly, the petitions are dismissed. All pending application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.