Patna High Court
The Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs Yogendra Pandey on 11 August, 2025
Author: P. B. Bajanthri
Bench: P. B. Bajanthri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.83 of 2020
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11313 of 2015
======================================================
1. The Life Insurance Corporation of India through its Chairman having its
Head Office at Yogakshema, Jeevan Bima Marg, Mumbai, Maharashtra.
2. The Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Jeevan Deep
Building, Fraser Road, Patna.
3. The Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Divisional Office, Muzaffarpur.
4. The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Chhapra Branch,
Chhapra, Dist. Saran at Chhapra.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Yogendra Pandey Son of Late Surendra Pandey resident of Nandlal Tola in
front of Dharm Nath Soap Factory, Garkha Road, Police Station- Chhapra
Town, Dist. Saran at Chhapra.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Abhimanyu Vatsa, Adv.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Baibhava Veer Sankar, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Ram Binod Singh, Adv.
Mr. Prashant Sinha, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)
Date : 11-08-2025
In the instant LPA, appellants - Life Corporation of
India have assailed the order of the learned Single Judge dated
16.09.2019
, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 11313 of 2015.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.83 of 2020 dt.11-08-2025
2/6
2. Limited contention taken by the appellants is that
it is a case of remand, having regard to the alleged charge
which is in criminal in nature. Therefore, merely not adhering
to certain principles of natural justice, the learned Single
Judge has proceeded to set aside the penalty order. Matter
should have been remanded to the disciplinary authority to
take afresh action from the defective stage and complete
within a reasonable period of time.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent resisted the aforementioned contention and
submitted that having regard to the nature of the allegation, it
is not a case of remand.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties.
5. Perusal of the record, it is evident that the alleged
allegation against the petitioner is relating to alleged
fraudulent surrender of policy no. 534382539 favouring Smt.
Gayatri Devi and took place on 30 th of June, 2009 and it was
within the knowledge of the respondent – Sri Yogendra
Pandey in terms of the records. Therefore, it is a serious
alleged allegation in so far as manipulation of L.I.C. records
Patna High Court L.P.A No.83 of 2020 dt.11-08-2025
3/6
by the respondent – Sri Yogendra Pandey. In such
circumstances Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Managing Director, ECIL V. B Karunakar, reported in
(1993) 4 SCC 727, read with Chairman-cum-Managing
Director, Coal India Limited & Ors. V. Ananta Saha and
Others, reported in (2011) 5 SCC 142, paragraphs 47 to 50,
held as under:
“47. It is a settled legal proposition
that the result of the fresh enquiry in such a
case relates back to the date of termination.
The submissions advanced on behalf of the
appellants that the result of the enquiry in
such a fact situation relates back to the date
of imposition of punishment, earlier stands
fortified by a large number of judgments of
this Court and particularly in R. Thiruvirkolam v.
Presiding Officer [(1997) 1 SCC 9 : 1997 SCC
(L&S) 65 : AIR 1997 SC633], Punjab Dairy
Development Corpn. Ltd. v. Kala Singh [(1997)
6 SCC 159 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1434 : AIR 1997 SC
2661] and Graphite India Ltd. vs. Durgapur
Projects Ltd. [(1999) 7 SCC 645].
48. In ECIL v. B. Karunakar [(1993) 4
SCC727 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 1184 : (1993) 25 ATC
704 : AIR 1994 SC 1074] and Union of India v.
Y.S. Sadhu [(2008) 12 SCC 30 : (2009) 1 SCC
(L&S) 126: AIR2009 SC 161], this Court held
that where the punishment awarded by the
disciplinary authority is quashed by the
court/tribunal on some technical ground, the
authority must be given an opportunity to
conduct the enquiry afresh from the stage
Patna High Court L.P.A No.83 of 2020 dt.11-08-2025
4/6
where it stood before the alleged vulnerability
surfaced. However, for the purpose of holding
fresh enquiry, the delinquent is to be reinstated
and may be put under suspension. The
question of back wages, etc. is determined by
the disciplinary authority in accordance with
law after the fresh enquiry is concluded.
49. The issue of entitlement of back
wages has been considered by this Court time
and again and consistently held that even after
punishment imposed upon the employee is
quashed by the court or tribunal, the payment
of back wages still remains discretionary. Power
to grant back wages is to be exercised by the
court/tribunal keeping in view the facts in their
entirety as no straitjacket formula can be
evolved, nor a rule of universal application can
be laid for such cases. Even if the delinquent is
reinstated, it would not automatically make him
entitled to back wages as entitlement to get
back wages is independent of reinstatement.
The factual scenario and the principles of
justice, equity and good conscience have to be
kept in view by an appropriate authority/court
or tribunal. In such matters, the approach of
the court or the tribunal should not be rigid or
mechanical but flexible and realistic. (Vide U.P.
SRTC v. Mitthu Singh [(2006)7 SCC 180 : 2006
SCC (L&S) 1590 : AIR 2006 SC3018], Akola
Taluka Education Society v. Shivaji [(2007) 9
SCC 564 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 679] and
Balasaheb Desai Sahakari S.K. Ltd. v. Kashinath
Ganapati Kambale [(2009) 2 SCC 288 : (2009) 1
SCC(L&S) 372].
50. In view of the above, the relief
sought by the delinquent that the appellants be
directed to pay the arrears of back wages from
the date of first termination order till date,
Patna High Court L.P.A No.83 of 2020 dt.11-08-2025
5/6
cannot be entertained and is hereby rejected.
In case the appellants choose to hold a fresh
enquiry, they are bound to reinstate the
delinquent and, in case, he is put under
suspension, he shall be entitled to subsistence
allowance till the conclusion of the enquiry.
All other entitlements would be determined
by the disciplinary authority as explained
hereinabove after the conclusion of the
enquiry. With these observations, the appeal
stands disposed of. No Costs.”
6. In other words, on technicality if penalty order is
set aside by judicial forum, in that event, matter is required to
be remanded to the disciplinary authority to commence afresh
enquiry from the defective stage. If the penalty order is set
aside on technical ground like non-compliance of principles of
natural justice at a particular stage of proceedings.
7. In the present case, we find that the learned Single
Judge has committed error in not remanding the matter to the
disciplinary authority with reference to alleged charge read
with the punishment and principle laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court cited supra.
8. Accordingly, the order of the learned Single Judge
stands modified to the following extent :-
Patna High Court L.P.A No.83 of 2020 dt.11-08-2025
6/6” Matter is remanded to the disciplinary authority to
decide afresh from the defective stage and provide all
necessary and ample opportunity of hearing to the petitioner
including oral hearing, if any, and thus proceedings shall be
completed within a period of four months from the date of
receipt of this order.”
9. Respondent – Sri Yogendra Pandey is hereby
directed to co-operate with the disciplinary authority/
enquiring authority / other authorities, if any.
10. Accordingly, the present LPA No. 83 of 2020
stands disposed of. Pending I.A.s, is any, stands disposed of.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
( S. B. Pd. Singh, J)
sushma/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 13 /08/2025 Transmission Date NA
[ad_1]
Source link