Patna High Court
IndiaversusAmrendra Kumar Ojha
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
A departmental enquiry vitiated by denial of natural‑justice safeguards—specifically non‑supply of charge‑sheet documents and refusal of a defence assistant—necessitates setting aside the punishment and remitting the matter to the disciplinary authority to conduct a fresh enquiry from the point of defect.
Summary
The Patna High Court considered an intra‑court appeal by Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) against a judgment that had set aside a disciplinary penalty of two‑stage pay‑scale reduction imposed on employee Amrendra Kumar Ojha. Ojha was charged under LIC Staff Regulations for using derogatory language and alleged misconduct, but he contended that the enquiry was conducted without supplying the charge‑sheet documents and without allowing a defence assistant, violating natural justice. The Single Judge had held these procedural lapses warranted setting aside the punishment and restoring Ojha’s pay. On appeal, the Court examined whether such violations require merely setting aside the order or also remanding the matter for a fresh enquiry, and referred to Supreme Court precedents on the effect of procedural defects in departmental enquiries. Concluding that the enquiry was vitiated, the Court set aside the impugned orders, remitted the case to the disciplinary authority for a fresh enquiry with proper document supply and defence‑assistant assistance, and directed completion within six months. The appeal was allowed in part.
Issues considered
- Whether the non‑supply of charge‑sheet documents and denial of a defence assistant violated the principles of natural justice in a departmental enquiry.
- Whether such violation warrants setting aside the disciplinary punishment and the appellate order.
- Whether the appropriate remedy is reinstatement with back wages or remand to the disciplinary authority for a fresh enquiry.
- Whether the disciplinary authority had jurisdiction and competence to impose the pay‑scale reduction.
Subjects
- departmental enquiry
- natural justice
- defence assistant
- disciplinary proceedings
- pay scale reduction
- remand
- reinstatement
- LIC
- procedural fairness
- punishment
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.839 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3344 of 2018
======================================================
1. The Life Insurance Corporation of India through its Chairman, Life
Insurance Corporation of India, Central Office Yogakshema, Jeevan Bima
Marg, Mumbai- 400021.
2. The Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India, through its Chairman,
Life Insurance Corporation of India, Central Office Yogakshema, Jeevan
Bima Marg, Mumbai- 400021.
3. The Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, East Central Zone,
Jeevan Deep (5th Floor), Exhibition Road, Patna- 800001.
4. The Chief (PER-ER), Life Insurance Corporation of India, Central Office
Yogakshema, Jeevan Bima Marg, Mumbai- 400021.
5. The Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Patna
Divisional Office- 1, Jeevan Prakash, Fraser Road, Patna- 800001.
6. The Manager (P and IR), Life Insurance Corporation Of India, Patna
Divisional Office- 1, Jeevan Prakash, Fraser Road, Patna - 800001.
7. The then Manager (CRM) and Enquiry Office, vide Chargesheet dated
15.03.2014, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Patna Divisional Office - 1,
Jeevan Prakash, Fraser Road, Patna - 800001.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Amrendra Kumar Ojha S/o- Late Hariganesh Ojha, Resident of -A/51,
Sachivalay Colony, P.O.- Lohianagar, P.S.- Kankarbagh, District- Patna -
800020.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Abhimanyu Vatsa, Adv.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Sameer Sawarn, Adv.
Mr. Rajnikant Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Amrendra Kumar Ojha (In Person)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR)
Date : 24-04-2026
We have heard Mr. Abhimanyu Vatsa, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the Life Insurance Corporation of India
and Others and the respondent, Mr. Amrendra Kumar Ojha (In
Person).
Patna High Court L.P.A No.839 of 2025 dt.24-04-2026
2/19
2. The present intra-court appeal under Clause 10 of
the Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred challenging the
order/judgment dated 04.07.2025 passed by a learned Single
Judge of this Court in CWJC No. 3344 of 2018, whereby and
whereunder the impugned order of the disciplinary authority,
inflicting the petitioner with the penalty of “Reductions by two
stages in the time scale of pay applicable to his cadre” as
directed under order dated 07.04.2015 as well as the appellate
order dated 14.12.2015 have been set aside. The respondents are
further directed to restore the petitioner’s scale of pay and
extend difference of pay from time to time after calculating the
same within a stipulated period.
3. The facts, in brief, which led to the filing of the
present appeal are that the writ petitioner while working as a
Stenographer in the office of the Sales Training Centre of Life
India Corporation (hereinafter referred to as LIC), was subjected
to an enquiry which led to issuance of a memo of charge dated
15.03.2014 under Regulation No. 39(2) of Life Insurance
Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation, 1960. The writ
petitioner, in sum and substance, was allegedly found involved
in showing utter disregard to his seniors by using derogatory
language in his letters, besides he levelled serious allegations
against them without any valid reason by using offensive
Patna High Court L.P.A No.839 of 2025 dt.24-04-2026
3/19
language and even threatened the authorities of lodging a
criminal case. The language of the petitioner was not found to be
conducive and in utter disregard to the office discipline, thus the
petitioner is said to have acted in a manner prejudicial to good
conduct and detrimental to the interest of Corporation, thereby
violating the provisions of Regulation 21 and 24 read with
Regulation 39(1) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India
(Staff) Regulation, 1960.
4. Upon receipt of the memo of charge, the petitioner
has filed his representation stating therein that he is unable to
file his reply in absence of the documents as referred in the
memo of charge, based upon which the LIC proposes to prove
the charges. Besides the aforesaid documents, the petitioner has
also requested to furnish other documents. On receipt of the
letter of the petitioner, the Corporation under its letter dated
09.05.2014, stated that any document pertaining to the charges,
shall be furnished to the petitioner during the course of enquiry
and he would also be provided reasonable opportunities for
cross-examination of the witnesses. Subsequent thereto, one Sri
Saurav Kumar Pandey, Manager (CRM) and Sri Manoj Kumar,
AO (PNGS) Divisional Office, Patna were appointed as an
Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer, respectively. The
Enquiry Officer directed the petitioner to ensure his presence
Patna High Court L.P.A No.839 of 2025 dt.24-04-2026
4/19
and also advised to apply for Defence Assistant before the
Disciplinary Authority, with consent of such employee, for his
assistance in the proceeding. On receipt of the said letter, the
petitioner made a response to the Enquiry Officer with a request
to defer further hearing, till disposal of an appeal filed before the
General Manager under Regulation 47(1)(b) of Life Insurance
Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation, 1960. The Enquiry
Officer did not accede to his prayer and issued a further letter
directing him to ensure his appearance, failing which it was
made clear that an ex-parte enquiry shall be conducted.
5. The writ petitioner filed another representation
before the Senior Divisional Manager, requesting therein to
approve the name of Sri Binay Kumar Sinha, Internal Audit
Assistant, Internal Audit Department, Patna Centre as an
Assisting Employee/ Defence Assistant to place the petitioner’s
case in the disciplinary proceeding. The request of the petitioner
for appointing Sri Binay Kumar Sinha as Assistant Employee
came to be rejected. The Presenting Officer was asked to furnish
his report and submissions. After hearing the Presenting Officer,
the Enquiry Officer asked the petitioner to defend the charges
levelled against him. The petitioner requested to the Enquiry
Officer that his request for the approval of Defence Assistant is
pending before the Senior Divisional Manager-cum-Disciplinary
Patna High Court L.P.A No.839 of 2025 dt.24-04-2026
5/19
Authority, therefore he prayed to fix the matter after getting
approval of the Defence Assistant. The Enquiry Officer
concluded the Enquiry and gave a finding that all the charges
levelled in the memo of charge stand proved. Consequently,
second show-cause notice was issued on 09.02.2015 alongwith
the report of the Enquiry Officer. The show-cause notice as well
as the enquiry report were put to challenge before this Court in
CWJC No. 4977 of 2015, which came to be disposed off on
02.04.2015 directing the petitioner to take all the contentions
raised in CWJC No. 4977 of 2015 before the Disciplinary
Authority.
6. In pursuant thereof, the petitioner filed his reply to
the second show-cause, bringing on record the entire facts.
However, it did not satisfy the Disciplinary Authority, who
proceeded to impose the penalty on 07.04.2015, inflicting the
punishment of “Reductions by two stages in the time scale of
pay applicable to his cadre” in terms of Regulation 39(1)(d) of
Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation, 1960.
Aggrieved, the writ petitioner preferred an appeal before the
Appellate Authority on 11.05.2015 which also stood dismissed
and the order of the punishment passed by the Disciplinary
Authority was confirmed vide order dated 14.12.2015. The
afore-noted order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary
Patna High Court L.P.A No.839 of 2025 dt.24-04-2026
6/19
Authority as well as order of the Appellate Authority affirming
the punishment, were questioned in CWJC No. 3344 of 2018
before this Court.
7. The writ petitioner, Amrendra Kumar Ojha (In
Person), while challenging the impugned order has submitted
that no opportunity was provided to him. The documents to be
relied by the Presenting Officer on behalf of LIC at the time of
issuance of Article of Charges have never been served,
resultantly, he has been denied in submission of effective reply.
Moreover, despite the assurance given by the Disciplinary
Authority that the petitioner would be provided necessary
documents during enquiry and he would be allowed to cross-
examine the witnesses, the same have never been provided.
8. On the other hand, the Enquiry Officer proceeded
and proved the charges in a most arbitrary manner. The
assistance of Defence Assistant, Binay Kumar Sinha, who was a
co-employee as sought for by the petitioner, was also refused in
contrary to the circular dated 14.07.1979. It was the specific
contention of the writ petitioner that without Defence Assistant,
the Enquiry Officer has conducted the enquiry and concluded
the same. The Disciplinary Authority to the petitioner was
Principal and not the Divisional Manager, nonetheless the entire
action has been taken by the Divisional Manager.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.839 of 2025 dt.24-04-2026
7/19
9. The contention of the petitioner was vehemently
refuted by the respondent authorities of the LIC and submitted
that the documents have been duly supplied during the course of
enquiry. Moreover, the Defence Assistant could be provided
only within the division, where the delinquent was working,
whereas Mr. Binay Kumar Sinha was not working within such
division, therefore the contention of the petitioner is said to be
not tenable. Further the Divisional Manager is superior to the
Principal and therefore he was the competent authority to inflict
the punishment. There was no infirmity in respect of competent
authority to initiate and conclude the Departmental Enquiry.
10. The learned Single Judge, having heard the
parties, has come to the conclusion that non-supply of
documents is in complete violation of the principles of natural
justice and it was the bounden duty of the Disciplinary Authority
to provide list of documents in support of the charges. It is also
observed that denial of engaging Defence Assistant to present
petitioner’s case before the Enquiry Officer is in gross violation
of the principles of natural justice. Finally the learned Single
Judge placing reliance upon various decisions of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court that denial of relevant documents in
Departmental Enquiry vitiates the enquiry, concluded that the
petitioner has not been provided ample opportunity, in complete
Patna High Court L.P.A No.839 of 2025 dt.24-04-2026
8/19
violation of natural justice and accordingly set aside the
impugned orders of the Disciplinary Authority as well as
Appellate Authority dated 07.04.2015 and 14.12.2015,
respectively. The respondents are further directed to restore the
petitioner’s scale of pay and extend difference of pay from time
to time, after calculating the same within a period of three
months vide order dated 04.07.2025.
11. Mr. Abhimanyu Vatsa, learned Advocate for the
appellant submits that the writ petitioner-respondent herein, is in
a habit of doing misconduct and violating the provisions of Life
Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation, 1960 by
misusing and abusing his position as elected General Secretary
of LIC of India Employees Association. The charge memo dated
15.03.2014 was issued for specific offences and the petitioner
was given every opportunity to defend his case and after
affording every opportunity and conducting proper enquiry, the
charges against the writ petitioner were proved and the order of
punishment was passed. The writ petitioner was all along
assured in response to his letters that he was provided all the
documents referred to in the memo of charge and; furthermore
when the writ petitioner appeared in the proceeding, the
documents referred to in the chargesheet were made available
for inspection, but he refused to make any comment on the same
Patna High Court L.P.A No.839 of 2025 dt.24-04-2026
9/19
or filed any defence.
12. In so far as the claim of the writ petitioner
regarding Defence Assistant is concerned, he was clearly
communicated that he can avail the services of any co-employee
who is posted at the venue of the enquiry, under the jurisdiction
of Divisional Office-1, LIC of India. The name proposed by the
writ petitioner was rejected for the reason that he was not posted
under Divisional Office-1. The learned Single Judge
misinterpreted the 1979 Circular of LIC in holding that any co-
employee, regardless of location, could act as a defence
assistant, irrespective of the fact the circular clearly vests
discretion with the Disciplinary Authority to approve such
request. The enquiry and the orders passed by the Disciplinary
and Appellate Authority were not vitiated by any procedural
irregularity and the findings were supported by evidence, is the
contention for learned Advocate for the appellant.
13. It is lastly contended that if, in the opinion of the
learned Single Judge, the disciplinary proceeding stood vitiated
on account of technical ground of non-compliance of principles
of natural justice, then the matter would have been remanded
back to the Disciplinary Authority to initiate a fresh proceeding
with effect from the stage when the defect has been found.
Referring to a Division Bench decision dated 11.08.2025 passed
Patna High Court L.P.A No.839 of 2025 dt.24-04-2026
10/19
in Letters Patent Appeal No. 83 of 2020. It is submitted that the
learned Division Bench, of which the learned Single Judge was
also a part to the decision, has duly observed that on technicality
if penalty order is set aside by judicial forum, in the event, the
matter is required to be remanded to the Disciplinary Authority
to commence a fresh enquiry from the defective stage. However,
in the case at hand, despite the learned Single Judge having
observed that there is non-compliance of principles of natural
justice and thus the impugned orders are vulnerable to
challenge, while setting aside the orders directed to restore the
petitioner’s scale of pay and extend difference of pay from time
to time, without remitting the matter back to the Disciplinary
Authority to proceed afresh. Reliance has also been placed on a
decision rendered by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL,
Hyderabad & Ors. vs. B. Karunakar & Ors., (1993) 4 SCC
727; Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited
& Ors. vs. Ananta Saha & Ors., (2011) 5 SCC 142; Chairman,
Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. vs. A.
Masilamani, (2013) 6 SCC 530; as also a recent decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Bal Bhavan &
Anr. vs. Khajan Chand & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4216 of 2026.
14. Per contra, Mr. Amrendra Kumar Ojha (In-
Patna High Court L.P.A No.839 of 2025 dt.24-04-2026
11/19
person), dispelling the afore-noted contentions submitted that
the Hon’ble Single Judge in his finding has recorded that the
documents whereupon charges are based have not been supplied
to him, in spite of such demand to rebut the charges levelled
against him. Supply thereof was mandatorily required as per
disciplinary rules; in absence thereof, the writ petitioner-
respondent herein, has been deprived from adequate opportunity
of hearing; in such circumstances the order which is under
challenge suffers from no infirmity and is absolutely correct and,
as such, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. The non-
consideration of the request of the writ petitioner to adjourn the
enquiry proceeding till the Defence Assistant is provided
alongwith the necessary documents could cause serious
prejudice to his right and entitlement. The Enquiry Officer as
well as Disciplinary Authority proceeded in their own way and
inflicted the punishment in a most arbitrary manner and, as such,
the learned Single Judge has rightly set aside the orders of
punishment as well as appellate order.
15. This Court has extensively heard the learned
Advocate for the appellant as well as Mr. Amrendra Kumar Ojha
(In Person). Before coming to the merit of the case as to whether
the order of punishment as well as the appellate order is
sustainable in law, in the opinion of this Court, the seminal
Patna High Court L.P.A No.839 of 2025 dt.24-04-2026
12/19
question as posed before this Court is as to whether when the
order of the punishment stands set aside on account of technical
reason or on account of the violation of the principles of natural
justice, the matter ought not to be remanded to the Disciplinary
Authority to proceed afresh or not?
16. To answer the above referred question, we
recapitulate the facts and the order of the learned Single Judge
which clearly manifest that the writ petitioner was subjected to a
departmental proceeding, which led to punishment of
“Reduction by two stages in the time scale of pay applicable
to his cadre”. The order of punishment was questioned before
the learned Single Judge on the ground of the same being in
complete derogation and violation of the principles of natural
justice, due to non-supply of the necessary documents based
upon which the charges were to be proved as well as the writ
petitioner was not provided the Defence Assistant to defend his
case in the disciplinary proceeding. The learned Single Judge on
being found that the petitioner has not been provided ample
opportunity in the proceeding, in violation of the principles of
natural justice, accordingly set aside the impugned orders of
punishment as well as appellate order, noted hereinabove.
17. Coming to the seminal legal issue, as to whether
when the order of punishment stands set aside on account of
Patna High Court L.P.A No.839 of 2025 dt.24-04-2026
13/19
technical reason or on account of the violation of the principles
of natural justice, the matter ought not to be remanded to
Disciplinary Authority to proceed afresh or not, we gainfully
refer the decision rendered in the case of B. Karunakar (supra).
18. The Hon’ble Constitution Bench in the case of B.
Karunakar (supra) while answering the question as to what
would be the effect on the order of punishment when the report
of enquiry officer is not furnished to the employee and what
relief should be granted to him in such case, has ruled as
follows:-
“30.[v]……..The answer to this question
has to be relative to the punishment
awarded. When the employee is dismissed
or removed from service and the inquiry
is set aside because the report is not
furnished to him, in some cases the non-
furnishing of the report may have
prejudiced him gravely while in other
cases it may have made no difference to
the ultimate punishment awarded to him.
Hence to direct reinstatement of the
employee with back-wages in all cases is
to reduce the rules of justice to a
mechanical ritual. The theory of
reasonable opportunity and the principles
of natural justice have been evolved to
uphold the rule of law and to assist the
individual to vindicate his just rights.
They are not incantations to be invoked
nor rites to be performed on all and
sundry occasions. Whether in fact,
prejudice has been caused to the
employee or not on account of the denial
to him of the report, has to be considered
Patna High Court L.P.A No.839 of 2025 dt.24-04-2026
14/19
on the facts and circumstances of each
case.
31. ……..The Court/Tribunal should not
mechanically set aside the order of
punishment on the ground that the report
was not furnished as is regrettably being
done at present. The courts should avoid
resorting to short cuts. Since it is the
Courts/Tribunals which will apply their
judicial mind to the question and give
their reasons for setting aside or not
setting aside the order of punishment,
(and not any internal appellate or
revisional authority), there would be
neither a breach of the principles of
natural justice nor a denial of the
reasonable opportunity. It is only if the
Court/Tribunal finds that the furnishing
of the report would have made a
difference to the result in the case that it
should set aside the order of punishment.
Where after following the above
procedure, the Court/Tribunal sets aside
the order of punishment, the proper relief
that should be granted is to direct
reinstatement of the employee with liberty
to the authority/management to proceed
with the inquiry, by placing the employee
under suspension and continuing the
inquiry from the stage of furnishing him
with the report. The question whether the
employee would be entitled to the back-
wages and other benefits from the date of
his dismissal to the date of his
reinstatement if ultimately ordered,
should invariably be left to be decided by
the authority concerned according to law,
after the culmination of the proceedings
and depending on the final outcome. If
the employee succeeds in the fresh
inquiry and is directed to be reinstated,
the authority should be at liberty to
decide according to law how it will treat
Patna High Court L.P.A No.839 of 2025 dt.24-04-2026
15/19
the period from the date of dismissal till
the reinstatement and to what benefits, if
any and the extent of the benefits, he will
be entitled. The reinstatement made as a
result of the setting aside of the inquiry
for failure to furnish the report, should be
treated as a reinstatement for the purpose
of holding the fresh inquiry from the
stage of furnishing the report and no
more, where such fresh inquiry is held.
That will also be the correct position in
law.”
19. It would also be apposite to refer the case of
Union of India vs. Y.S. Sadhu, Ex-Inspector, (2008) 12 SCC 30
where the Court while examining the issue as to whether when
the Departmental Enquiry conducted against respondent was
found defective, inasmuch as, witnesses examined earlier were
not produced for cross-examination, held that there could not be
an automatic reinstatement after setting aside the order of
punishment.
20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court answering the
question afore-noted following the law laid down in the case of
B. Karunakar (supra) as well as Hiran Mayee Bhattacharyya
vs. S.M. School for Girls & Ors., (2002) 10 SCC 293 has ruled
that the course adopted in the two cases above is to be followed.
There shall not be any reinstatement, but the proceeding shall
continue from the stage where it stood before the alleged
vulnerability surfaced.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.839 of 2025 dt.24-04-2026
16/19
21. Similarly, in the case of A. Masilamani (supra),
the Court reiterated the aforesaid proposition of law and
underscored that it is a settled legal proposition that once the
Court sets aside an order of punishment, on the ground that the
enquiry was not properly conducted, the Court cannot reinstate
the employee. It must remit the case concerned to the
Disciplinary Authority for it to conduct the enquiry from the
point that it stood vitiated and conclude the same.
22. It would also be worth benefiting to refer a
decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ranjit Singh (2022) 15 SCC 254,
wherein a junior engineer on being aggrieved with the order of
punishment passed by a Disciplinary Authority, challenged the
same before a Tribunal. The order of punishment was set aside
by the Tribunal and the High Court has also refused to interfere
with the order passed by the Tribunal. The State has
unsuccessfully challenged such orders and also filed review and
finally approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court while setting aside the order of the Tribunal as
well as the High Court, has observed that where it is found that
enquiry was not conducted properly and/or same was held to be
in violation of principles of natural justice, Court cannot
reinstate employee and, as such, matter must be remanded to
Patna High Court L.P.A No.839 of 2025 dt.24-04-2026
17/19
Enquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority to proceed further
with enquiry from stage, when violation of principle was
noticed. The Court noted that since in the case at hand, the
documents mentioned in the charge-sheet were not supplied to
delinquent officer and thus, it is clearly in breach of principles of
natural justice and, as such, the matter ought to be remanded to
Disciplinary Authority to conduct fresh enquiry after issuance of
fresh charge-sheet and furnishing all necessary documents by
following the due principles of natural justice.
23. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also
echoed a similar view in the case of Khazan Chand (Supra)
where it has revived the disciplinary proceeding from the stage
of consideration of enquiry report by the disciplinary authority.
Here, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while setting aside of the
dismissal order arising from such disciplinary proceeding where
the disciplinary authority was repeatedly alleged of bias by the
delinquent employee, based on its prior adversarial conduct,
held that such a defect in the process, rather than being
substantive, is in fact procedural. Recognizing the fact that
decision making process need to be insulated from prejudice and
charges needed a proper enquiry from an impartial authority, the
disciplinary authority, who now is a new person, was directed to
consider the report independently; the court directed so without
Patna High Court L.P.A No.839 of 2025 dt.24-04-2026
18/19
entering into the merits of the matter.
24. Once from the materials available on record, it is
manifest that the impugned order of punishment passed by the
Disciplinary Authority has been set aside, on being vitiated due
to non-compliance of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch
as, the petitioner has not been allowed the copy of necessary
documents basing upon which the charges were to be proved,
we found it difficult to accept the order of the learned Single
Judge to the extent whereby the respondents, appellants herein,
were directed to restore the petitioner’s scale of pay and extend
difference of pay from time to time after calculating the same
within a stipulated period. Since the impugned order of the
punishment as well as the appellate order have been set aside on
account of technical ground and in violation of the principles of
natural justice, we also hereby adopt the principle enunciated by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred cases.
25. Accordingly, we set aside the order under
challenge dated 04.07.2025 to the extent whereby while
allowing the writ petition, the respondents are directed to restore
the petitioners scale of pay and extend difference of pay from
time to time. However, as the enquiry is found to be vitiated and
held to be in violation of the principles of natural justice, as it
appears that the necessary documents mentioned in the charge-
Patna High Court L.P.A No.839 of 2025 dt.24-04-2026
19/19
sheet were not supplied to the delinquent officer, this Court
hereby remands the matter to the Disciplinary Authority to
conduct a fresh enquiry from the stage it stood vitiated, i.e. after
the issuance of the charge-sheet and to proceed further with the
enquiry after furnishing all the necessary documents and to
provide the assistance of Defence Assistant, in terms with the
Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation, 1960,
after following due principles of natural justice.
26. Since the departmental proceeding against the
petitioner was initiated long back, it is expected that the
aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of six
months from today.
27. The present appeal is allowed to the extent afore-
noted.
(Harish Kumar, J)
(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ): I agree.
(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)
supratim/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 15.04.2026
Uploading Date 24.04.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…