CHAIRMAN, LIC OF INDIA & ORS. versus A. MASILAMANI

Citation: [2012] 11 S.C.R. 35 · Decided: 23-11-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

(2012) 11 S.C.R. 35 
CHAIRMAN, LIC OF INDIA & ORS. 
v. 
A. MASILAMANI 
(Civil Appeal No. 8263 of 2012) 
NOVEMBER 23, 2012 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND 
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.] 
Service Law - Disciplinary proceedings ..:. Punishment 
imposed in disciplinary proceeding set aside by Court/tribunal 
A 
B 
on technical grounds - Whether the superior court, must C 
provide opportunity to the disciplinary authority, to take up and 
complete the proceedings, from the point that they stood 
vitiated -
Held: Once the Court sets aside an order of 
punishment, on the ground that the enquiry was not properly 
conducted, it must remit the concerned case to the disciplinary 
D 
authority, for it to conduct the enquiry from the point that it 
stood vitiated, and conclude the same. 
Service Law - Disciplinary proceedings - Punishment 
imposed in disciplinary proceeding set aside by Court/tribunal 
E 
on technical grounds - Opportunity to disciplinary authority, 
to take up and complete the proceedings, from the point that 
they stood vitiated - Whether may be denied on the ground 
of delay in initiation, or in conclusion of the disciplinary 
proceedings - Held: The court/tribunal should not generally 
F 
set aside the departmental enquiry, and quash the charges 
on the ground of delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings, 
as sµch power is de hors the limitation of judicial review -
Same principle applicable in relation to there being a delay 
in conclusion of disciplinary proceedings - On facts, matter 
remitted to the disciplinary authority to enable it to take fresh 
G 
decision, taking into consideration the gravity of the charges 
involved, as to whether it may still be required to hold a de 
novo enquiry, from the stage that it stood vitiated, i.e., after 
35 
H 
36 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2012) 11 S.C.R. 
A issuance of charge-sheet - In the event that the authority takes 
a view, that the facts and circumstances of the case require a 
fresh enquiry, it may proceed accordingly and conclude the 
said enquiry, most expeditiously - Life Insurance Corporation 
of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulations 39(1) and 
B 46(2). 
Words and Phrases -
"consider" -
Meaning of -
Dictionary meaning -
Term "consider" postulates 
consideration of all relevant aspects of a matter - Clear 
connotation to the effect that·there must be active application 
C of mind. 
The respondent was working with the appellant-
Corporation as a Higher Grade Assistant. Disciplinary 
proceedings were initiated against him by the appellants. 
o The proceedings were quashed by the High Court. 
The High Court after reappreciating the entire 
evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that 
in the course of enquiry proceedings, certain witnesses 
E had not been examined in the presence of the delinquent 
respondent, and that hence, no proper opportunity was 
given to him to cross-examine such witnesses; that 
moreover, the documents relied upon by the Enquiry 
Officer, were not properly proved by any witness and 
ultimately, the findings of the Enquiry Officer stood 
F vitiated, for non-compliance with mandatory requirements 
of the applicable regulations as well as for violating of 
the principles of natural justice. The court further held 
that the Appellate Authority had not applied its mind to 
the case, and had failed to consider the case as required 
G under Regulation 46(2) of the Life Insurance Corporation 
of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. Thus, the court set 
aside the punishment imposed upon the respondent, and 
also refused to give the appellant any opportunity, to 
continue the enquiry from the point that it stood vitiated. 
H 
CHAIRMAN, LIC OF INDIA & ORS. v. A. MASILAMANI 37 
The appellants submitted before this Court that the A 
High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by quashing the 
disciplinary proceedings, as well as the punishment 
imposed, stating that the same did not fall within the 
scope of judicial review and that moreover, the decision 
to not remand the case for rf)consideration at such a B 
belated stage, could also not be justified. 
The following questions therefore arise for 
consideration: 1) When a court/tribunal sets aside the 
order of punishment imposed in a disciplinary 
proceeding on technical grounds, i.e., non-observance of C 
statutory provisions, or for violation of the principles of 
natural justice, then whether the superior court, must 
provide opportunity to the disciplinary authority, to take 
up and

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.