Lokesh Tewari vs Managing Director & Ors.

Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the order dated 02.06.2023, whereby his services were terminated, as well as the appellate order dated 29.02.2024, whereby his departmental appeal came to be rejected. The petitioner has also sought consequential reliefs arising therefrom.

Facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as Assistant Administrative Officer (EDMS) with the Life Insurance Corporation of India. On 04.03.2022, an incident of marpeet took place at the LIC office, Kathgodam, involving the petitioner and another employee, Shri S.K. Sharma, Manager (EDMS). It is the petitioner’s case that the incident was not attributable solely to him and that, thereafter, the parties entered into a compromise at Police Station Kathgodam on the same day. Consequent to the incident, departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner participated in the proceedings and submitted his defence, disputing the allegations levelled against him. The Inquiry Officer thereafter submitted his report, whereupon the disciplinary authority, vide order dated 02.06.2023, terminated the petitioner from service. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a departmental appeal, which came to be rejected vide order dated 29.02.2024. The petitioner has consequently approached this Court challenging the aforesaid orders, principally contending that the departmental proceedings suffered from violation of the principles of natural justice, the relevant circumstances surrounding the incident and the subsequent compromise were not properly considered, and the punishment of termination imposed upon him is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the departmental proceedings arose out of the incident dated 04.03.2022, which occurred during a quarrel between the petitioner and Shri S.K. Sharma. It is contended that the incident was not unilateral and that the petitioner had himself suffered injuries, including damage to his shirt and spectacles. The parties thereafter entered into a settlement at Police Station Kathgodam on the following day i.e. 05.03.2022, which was a relevant circumstance while assessing the nature and gravity of the alleged misconduct.

It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had specifically disputed the statements of the departmental witnesses and pointed out material contradictions in their versions. According to learned counsel, the inquiry proceedings were one-sided and the defence of the petitioner was not properly appreciated. It is also contended that the petitioner had raised these grounds before the appellate authority, along with the circumstances surrounding the incident and the subsequent compromise.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that even assuming the finding of misconduct to be sustained, the punishment of removal from service is grossly disproportionate to the misconduct alleged, particularly when the incident arose out of a quarrel between employees and was followed by a settlement on the same day. The authorities failed to appropriately consider these mitigating circumstances while imposing the extreme penalty of removal from service.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the departmental inquiry was conducted in accordance with the applicable rules and the petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity to defend himself. The Inquiry Officer, after examining the witnesses and material on record, found the charge of abusing and slapping Shri S.K. Sharma proved. It is contended that the petitioner failed to produce any credible evidence in support of his defence and the allegations regarding contradictions in the statements of witnesses were duly considered.

Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the settlement entered into at Police Station Kathgodam did not contain any assurance that departmental proceedings would not be initiated against the petitioner. The employer was entitled to take disciplinary action for misconduct committed in the office, irrespective of the settlement between the employees. It is further submitted that the appellate authority considered the grounds raised by the petitioner and rightly affirmed the punishment, which was commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct. It is therefore submitted that no interference is warranted with the departmental findings or the punishment imposed upon the petitioner and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record, this Court finds that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated and conducted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Rules, 1960. The allegations against the petitioner related to violation of Rules 21 and 24 of the said Rules and the proceedings were conducted in accordance with Rule 39. Consequent to the disciplinary proceedings, the penalty of removal from service, in terms of Rule 39(1)(i) of the said Rules, was imposed upon the petitioner. The petitioner was served with the charges and was afforded adequate opportunity to defend himself, including an opportunity to cross-examine the departmental witnesses. No violation of the principles of natural justice or any procedural irregularity is made out. The departmental witnesses have consistently supported the allegation that the petitioner abused and slapped Shri S.K. Sharma. The petitioner’s contention that he was himself abused or assaulted has not been substantiated by any reliable material on record. On the contrary, the petitioner, on 05.03.2022 at Police Station-Kathgodam, admitted his misconduct and expressed that such conduct would not be repeated. Thus, the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer are based upon the material on record and do not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or impropriety warranting interference in exercise of judicial review.

The question of punishment, however, stands on a different footing. Before examining the proportionality of the punishment imposed upon the petitioner, it would be apposite to reef to the principles governing judicial review in such matters. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Punjab & Sind Bank v. Raj Kumar, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 519, has reiterated the principles governing judicial interference with the quantum of punishment in disciplinary proceedings, observing as under:

The aforesaid principles make it clear that although the Court does not ordinarily substitute its own view for that of the disciplinary authority, interference is permissible where the punishment imposed is so disproportionate to the misconduct proved that it shocks the conscience of the Court. In such a situation, the appropriate course would ordinarily be to remit the matter to the competent authority for reconsideration of the quantum of punishment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surekha Domaji Bele v. Executive Engineer, Testing Division, MSEDCL, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1109, has also reiterated that even where the finding of misconduct is maintained, the quantum of punishment may be reconsidered having regard to the nature of misconduct, length of service, past record, age and other relevant circumstances.

In the present case, the misconduct proved against the petitioner cannot be condoned. Nevertheless, having regard to the nature of the misconduct, the circumstances in which the incident occurred and the fact that the matter was subsequently settled between the parties, this Court finds the punishment of removal from service to be shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct proved. The settlement cannot, by itself, nullify the disciplinary action, but it is a relevant mitigating circumstance while considering the quantum of punishment. Consequently, while the finding of misconduct recorded against the petitioner is maintained, the punishment imposed upon him requires reconsideration by the competent disciplinary authority in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed. The order dated 02.06.2023, whereby the petitioner has been removed from service, as well as the appellate order dated 29.02.2024, are set aside to the extent of the quantum of punishment. The findings recorded in the departmental inquiry against the petitioner shall remain undisturbed.

The matter is remitted to the competent disciplinary authority to reconsider the quantum of punishment in accordance with law, having regard to the nature and gravity of the misconduct, the petitioner’s length of service, past service record, the circumstances in which the incident occurred and the subsequent settlement between the parties, and to pass a fresh, reasoned and speaking order within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.