However, before I proceed further in the matter, I hereby give you an opportunity to either admit or deny the aforesaid charges in writing.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties and perused the papers on record.
Brief facts of the case are that Senior Divisional Manager of Life Insurance Corporation of India, at Shahdol in order to recruit peons sub staff invited applications from the qualified candidates through Employment Exchange.
542 of 2004 s before the High Court.
As per the qualification prescribed by the appellant, a candidate was required to have passed Standard IX, but the candidates who have passed Standard XII and have secured 50 or more marks, Graduates or Post graduates were number to be companysidered for the post.
It is further directed by the High Court that the appellant may companysider to impose the penalty against the present respondent as was awarded in the case of Daluram Patidar, another employee of the appellant Corporation.
However Candidates who passed XII Std.
On companyclusion of the departmental enquiry, the respondent writ petitioner was found guilty of misconduct.
At the end of the application dated 20th January, 1996, a declaration was made by the candidate writ petitioner that he did number possess any other qualification except the one mentioned in the application.
The said order was challenged by the respondent before the Departmental Appellate Authority i.e. Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Delhi.
was 12696, which was deliberately suppressed by you.
That in the declaration given on 22.03.1996 at the time of interview also, you have suppressed your actual educational qualification and fraudulently produced the duplicate Transfer Certificate number79, of Government Raghuraj Higher Secondary School number1, Shahdol in support of your having passed XI th standard.
Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed by the High Court.
On companysideration of the reply submitted by the respondent, the Senior Divisional Manager, L.I.C. of India, Shahdol vide his order dated 30th October, 2000 Annexure P 11 , removed the respondent writ petitioner from the service.
Xx xx xx xx xx.
The reply given by the writ petitioner to above charge sheet to the Department is quoted below To The Divisioal Manager I C. LIC of India Divisional Office Shahdol P. Through Proper Channel Dear Sir, RE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS UNDER REGULATION 39 OF THE LIC OF INDIA STAFF REGULATIONS, 1960 AND CHARGESHEET DATED 29.02.2000, ISSUED TO ME.
Pursuant to that, respondent Triveni Sharan Mishra submitted his application.
The qualification prescribed by the appellant for the post of peon, as mentioned in Annexure P 1 reads as under Qualifications A pass in ST.IX.
The respondent writ petitioner in his application Annexure P 3 for the above post mentioned his qualification Higher Secondary XIth old .
The charge sheet served on the writ petitioner is reproduced below CHARGE SHEET You, Shri Triveni Sharan Mishra, SR number704768, Sub Staff, Divisional Office Shahdol are hereby charged as under That, in your application dated 20.01.1996 for the post of Sub Staff, submitted to Shahdol Divisional Office of LIC of India, you have mentioned your educational qualification as Higher Secondary 11th old , whereas your educational qualification at that time was of Graduation level, which was more than the desired qualification for the post of Sub Staff.
Aggrieved by said order, the respondent filed writ petition No.
However, after companyple of years of his service, it was found that he possessed Bachelors Degree and he was pursuing M.A. previous in Economics at the time he applied for the post as above.
The respondent writ petitioner appears to have got selected for the post of Peon.
Upon companysideration of the appeal submitted by the respondent against imposition of penalty of removal in terms of Regulation 39 1 f of the LIC of India Staff Regulations, 1960 hereinafter to be referred to as the Regulations passed by the Senior Divisional Manager, Shahdol, the Appellate Authority companycurred with the view taken by the said Authority, and dismissed the appeal on 18th February, 2003.
And in year 1990 91 also you had taken admission as a Regular student in M.A. Previous Economics to appear in the examination your Roll No.
Aggrieved by the said decision of the High Court, this appeal was preferred by the employer Life Insurance Corporation of India.
On this, the respondent was served with the charge sheet by the appellant and departmental enquiry was initiated.
With reference to above charge sheet, my submission is as under That I was an unemployed person, and I was in dire need of employment.
The provisional list of the documents on the basis of which the charges are to be proved is enclosed Your aforesaid act, is in companytravention to rules of the Corporation and prejudicial to good companyduct, thereby violating the provisions of Regulations 21, 24 and 39 1 of the aforesaid Staff Regulations 1960, for which one or more of the penalties specified under Regulation 39 1 a to g can be imposed on you.
Consequently, he was served with the show cause numberice as to why he be number removed from the service.
PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 6th January, 2006 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Writ Petition No.
542 of 2004 whereby the writ petition has been allowed, and the writ petitioner is directed to be reinstated in service.
