Patna High Court

Pranav Kumar JhaversusLife Insurance Corporation Of India and Ors

Decided: 18 February 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: BIBEK CHAUDHURI

Holding

The court held that while the inquiry complied with natural justice, the punishment of permanently withholding two increments was disproportionate and therefore had to be modified.

Summary

The petitioner, a LIC employee and union secretary, was charged with using unparliamentary language against a branch manager and was subjected to a departmental inquiry without a preliminary investigation. The inquiry concluded he was guilty of misconduct and imposed a penalty of permanently withholding two salary increments, which was affirmed up to the Chairman of LIC. The petitioner challenged the order under Article 226, alleging denial of natural justice, lack of assistance, and disproportionate punishment. The High Court examined the inquiry record, found that the petitioner was given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself, but held that the penalty was excessive relative to the misconduct. Consequently, the Court modified the order, allowing the petitioner to receive increments from March 2026 onward, but not the arrears for the period before that. The writ petition was therefore disposed of with the modification of the punishment.

Issues considered

Did the departmental inquiry violate the principles of natural justice owed to the petitioner?
Is the penalty of permanently withholding two salary increments proportionate to the alleged misconduct of using abusive language?
Can the order of the disciplinary authority be quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution?

Subjects

disciplinary proceedings
natural justice
proportionality
penalty modification
Article 226
writ petition
employment law
LIC of India

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1179 of 2017
======================================================
Pranav Kumar Jha Son of Shri Vijay Kant Jha, Resident of Village-Bhushola,
P.S.-Phulwarisharif, Distt.-Patna at Present Working as Higher Grade
Assistant, In the Office of Sr. Branch Manager, LIC of India, Jahanabad
Branch Office, Under Divisional Office-1

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Life Insurance Corporation Of India
2. The Chairman, LIC of India, Yogakshema' Jeevan Bima Marg, Mumbai:
400021,
3. The Zonal Manager, LIC of India, East Central Zonal Office, Jeevan Deep
5th Floor, Exhibition Road
4. Sr, Divisional Manager, Lic of India, Patna Division-1,'Jeevan Prakash'
Mazaharul Haque Path, Patna
5. The Manager PandIR/Dm. LIC of India, Patna Division-1, "Jeevan Prakash'',
Mazaharul Haque Path, Patna
6. The Branch Manager, LIC of India, Rajgir Branch Office Under Patna
Divisional Office-1, Rajgir.

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nilendu Kr. Choudhary, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Nilanjan Chatterjee, Advocate
Mr. Ujjwal Raj, Advocate
Mr. Sahil Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Anirvan Choudhuri, Advocate
Mr. Jyoti Prakash, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
ORAL ORDER

6 18-02-2026 The petitioner is an employee of Life Insurance

Corporation of India (hereinafter described as ‘LICI’), presently

posted at Indore in the State of Madhya Pradesh. He was

appointed as Assistant in the LICI on 20 th March, 1996. He was

also the Base Secretary of the LIC Employees’ Association

under the banner of the Life Insurance Workers’ Union, Patna
Patna High Court CWJC No.1179 of 2017(6) dt.18-02-2026
2/8

Division. Being the Secretary of the Employees’ Association, he

used to visit various offices within the Division. While he was

posted at Rajgir, he had some differences of opinion with the

Branch Manager of Rajgir Division. On the sole reason to

victimise him, the Manager (P&IR)/DM, Patna Divisional

Office-I, issued a letter dated 24th December, 2013, directing the

petitioner to submit an explanation within seven days from the

date of receipt of such letter, alleging, inter alia, that on 8th

October, 2013, the petitioner abused the Branch Manager, Rajgir

Division, using unparliamentary and filthy language. The

petitioner duly submitted his explanation denying all such

allegations, but without taking resort to a preliminary inquiry, a

departmental memo of charge was served upon the petitioner

along with certain other documents. Thus, the petitioner was

subjected to departmental proceedings.

2. Suffice it to say that in the disciplinary proceeding,

the petitioner was held guilty of misconduct. Thereafter, the

petitioner was served with a second show-cause notice. Finally,

the departmental authority passed an order dated 31st January,

2015, imposing the penalty of withholding two increments

permanently, as applicable to his cadre. The petitioner assailed

the said order passed by the disciplinary authority in appeal and
Patna High Court CWJC No.1179 of 2017(6) dt.18-02-2026
3/8

subsequently, by filing a memorial, and the aforesaid penalty

was affirmed up to the level of Chairman, LICI. This prompted

the petitioner to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction under Article

226 of the Constitution for the following reliefs:–

“i. For issuance of
appropriate writ(s), Rule(s),
direction(s) in the nature of
mandamus commanding the
respondents concerned for quashing
the order dated – 31.01.2015, passed
by the Sr. Divisional Manager -cum-
the Disciplinary Authority, LIC of
India, Patna Division I, against the
petitioner, by which a penalty of
"withholding of two increments
permanently as applicable to his
cadre" has been passed in terms of
Regulation 39 (1)(b) of LIC of India
(Staff) Regulation 1960, without
providing the reasonable
opportunities and without supplying
the most relevant documents to the
petitioner.
ii. For quashing of
Appellate Order dated 26.05.2015
passed by the Zonal Manager cum-the
Appellate Authority, East Central
Zone, Patna by which the petitioner's
Patna High Court CWJC No.1179 of 2017(6) dt.18-02-2026
4/8

appeal dated 21.02.2015 has been
rejected & withholding the order of
penalty dated- 31.01.2015.
iii. For quashing of order
dated 27.11.2015 passed by the
Chairman of LIC of India, by which
the petitioner's Memorial dated
23.06.2015 has been rejected, without
considering the relevant facts and
circumstances of the case.
iv. For grant of other
relief(s) to which the petitioner may
found entitled to, on the facts and
circumstances of the case.”
3. I have heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner

and the learned Advocate for the LICI, duly representing the

respondent. In the course of his argument, the learned Advocate

on behalf of the petitioner has pointed out a series of lacunae in

the inquiry proceeding, viz., the petitioner was not allowed

assistance of one of his colleagues to defend him. Subsequently,

though the prayer for a defence assistant filed by the petitioner

was allowed, no documents were supplied to him. He was not

properly allowed to cross-examine the witnesses and, last but

not the least, the impugned punishment is grossly

disproportionate to the allegation levelled against the petitioner.

4. Learned Advocate on behalf of the LICI, on the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1179 of 2017(6) dt.18-02-2026
5/8

other hand, submits that the professional duty and ethics of an

employee enjoin a duty to obey the senior officers of the

establishment. The fact remains that the petitioner misused his

post as Secretary of the Workers’ Union and abused the Branch

Manager, Rajgir Division of LICI, in abusive language. The act

of the petitioner is per se a glaring instance of misconduct. It

would not be possible for the Manager of the Branch to run the

Branch, commanding authority over the employees under him,

if the employees found that the Branch Manager was being

abused by the Secretary of the Workers’ Union. Since he abused

the Branch Manager of Rajgir Division, which was proved

during the inquiry, punishment was passed by the disciplinary

authority, which was affirmed up to the level of the Chairman of

LICI. There is no reason to interfere with the order of

punishment.

5. Learned Advocate on behalf of the respondents

further submits that the respondents have produced the original

record of the departmental proceeding. He invites the Court to

peruse the original record of the departmental proceeding to

come to an independent finding as to whether the petitioner was

granted adequate opportunity in the departmental proceeding

and whether the principle of natural justice in conducting the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1179 of 2017(6) dt.18-02-2026
6/8

departmental inquiry was violated or not. This Court has

perused the record of the departmental inquiry. This Court finds

that the petitioner was allowed adequate opportunity to place his

defense and the principle of natural justice was duly provided by

the inquiry authority, disciplinary authority and the superior

authority up to the level of the Chairman, LICI. This Court does

not find any fault on the part of the respondents in arriving at a

conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct by

abusing the Branch Manager, Rajgir Division, LICI. Now comes

the question regarding the proportionality of the nature of

misconduct and the order of punishment passed against the

petitioner.

6. Having heard the submissions made by the learned

Advocates for the petitioner and the respondents and, on careful

perusal of the entire materials on record, this Court finds that the

only allegation against the petitioner is that he abused the

Branch Manager, Rajgir Division, using unparliamentary and

filthy language. For such misconduct, punishment of

withholding of two increments permanently, as applicable to his

cadre, has been passed. Even assuming that the petitioner

committed the misconduct as alleged by abusing the Branch

Manager, Rajgir Division, the only consideration is as to
Patna High Court CWJC No.1179 of 2017(6) dt.18-02-2026
7/8

whether the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner is

proportionate to the misconduct. In my considered opinion, a

punishment in the form of pecuniary loss or curtailment of two

increments permanently is not proportionate to the charge of

using abusive words against the Branch Manager, Rajgir

Division. If an employee, who was an Assistant at the relevant

point of time in the establishment, abused his superior officer,

he could have been cautioned or censured, but in the considered

opinion of this Court, the graver punishment of withholding two

increments permanently from the salary of the petitioner is not

proportionate to his guilt. Therefore, this Court is of the view

that the punishment is required to be modified.

7. For the reasons stated above, the instant writ

petition is disposed of by modifying the punishment of

withholding of two increments from the date of passing of the

order by disciplinary authority till the date of delivery of final

judgment. From the month of March 2026, the petitioner is

entitled to get the increments which had been withheld along

with his salary, meaning thereby, he is not entitled to get the

arrears of two increments which were withheld from the date of

the order passed by the disciplinary authority till February 2026.

8. With the above modification, the instant writ
Patna High Court CWJC No.1179 of 2017(6) dt.18-02-2026
8/8

petition is disposed of.

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
suraj/-

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…