GUWAHATI, India, Nov. 24 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Oct. 24:

1. We have heard Mr. S.K. Srivastava, learned Advocate assisted by Mr. N.Z. Lotha, learned Advocate for the review petitioner and Mr. S. Dutta, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.

2. The instant review petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 04.08.2021 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in WA 11/2021, whereby the order dated 20.11.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge (Kohima Bench) in WP(C) No.266 (K)/2017 allowing the writ petition of the petitioner herein and setting aside the order of his removal from service, was upturned and the punishment imposed upon the petitioner by the disciplinary authority was upheld.

3. We are referring to only those facts which are necessary to dispose off the present review petition.

The petitioner while working as a Higher Grade Assistant in the LIC Branch of Dimapur in Nagaland in the year 2010 was subjected to a departmental proceeding for having committed financial irregularities which were detected in an audit done in the year 2012. In the audit, referred to above, anomalies were detected regarding disbursement of money which was payable to the policy-holders on maturity. The preliminary enquiry revealed that it was not inadvertent but was deliberate. The petitioner was thus charge-sheeted and was served with eight specific charges. The Enquiry Officer found all the charges to be fully proved. The Disciplinary Authority/Appointing Authority accepted the enquiry report and imposed the punishment of removal from service. The petitioner was removed from service vide order dated 12.01.2017. The departmental appeal against the afore-noted order of removal was dismissed. The Memorial preferred by the petitioner before the Chairman of the LICI was also rejected.

Thereafter, the petitioner is said to have filed the writ petition [WP(C) No.266 (K)/2017] which was allowed by holding that no doubt financial irregularities were committed in the Dimapur Branch of LIC, but the petitioner could not be squarely blamed for the same and that no other person was subjected to any departmental proceeding. It is appeared to the learned Single Judge that the petitioner was singled out. The learned Single Judge also held that the petitioner might have signed the cheques but it was done only after proper scrutiny at various levels, including the Branch Manager and, therefore, in the long chain of administration, it was improper and unjust to single out the petitioner only. The order of removal from service of the petitioner was set aside and quashed.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=zDLovBVSUw02H8XukOjXfOUwEaBWIN%2FMvV1HXL1rTeDm%2BA7YYDzQ8VMlyeTXj%2Bb9&caseno=Review.Pet./246/2025&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010144792022&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.