Background

The petitioner, Manoj Verma, was appointed as Development Officer in LIC on September 12, 1992. He had submitted a caste certificate which was duly verified at the time of his appointment. During his 33 years of service, Verma has consistently performed well, often ranking among the best employees in his division. In 2002, a complaint was filed alleging that Verma’s caste certificate was fake, but this was retracted and the caste certificate was declared genuine. Nonetheless, in 2022, LIC issued a charge sheet based on the claim that the Revenue Authority had been unable to locate documents relating to his caste certificate. During the ongoing departmental proceedings, LIC dismissed Verma for failing to provide an updated digital caste certificate, as per a circular issued on January 3, 2014. Verma argued that LIC’s insistence on a new digital certificate was unreasonable and that the unavailability of the documents should not compromise the legitimacy of the certificate issued more than three decades ago.

Arguments

Senior advocate AK Sethi argued that the original caste certificate issued in 1990 was valid and had been duly verified. He said the Inland Revenue’s failure to locate the records did not mean the certificate was fake. Sethi pointed out that Verma had applied for a new caste certificate, but the delay was due to delays in the procedure. He argued that the dismissal of an employee for failing to provide an updated certificate after 33 years of service violated the principles of natural justice and was arbitrary.

LIC’s lawyer, Ms Jyoti Tiwari, argued that the dismissal was legal under section 3 of the 2014 circular, which required employees to submit updated digital caste certificates. She argued that since Verma had not complied, LIC had no option but to terminate its services. She further claimed that other employees had complied with the requirement, making Verma’s non-compliance inexcusable.

Court reasoning

The court analyzed Section 3 of the 2014 circular, which imposes immediate disciplinary action if an employee fails to provide a valid caste certificate. He noted that the circular was intended to address cases where the authenticity of a caste certificate was doubtful. However, in Verma’s case, no fraud or forgery was found. The Tax Authority’s report confirmed that the records were simply not available, not that the certificate was fake. The court emphasized that unavailability of records does not amount to false certificate nor does it constitute evidence of misrepresentation. The 1990 certificate had been issued by a competent authority and, at that time, no prescribed format was required. The court held that dismissing Verma solely because of LIC’s request for a digital certificate, especially when he had already requested one, was unreasonable.

The court faulted LIC for failing to provide any evidence of wrongdoing or taking any action against the agent issuing the missing documents. Finally, the court pointed out that Verma’s application for a fresh caste certificate remained pending. Justice Shukla pointed out that the dismissal of an employee for procedural delay in government offices, especially after decades of impeccable service, was arbitrary and disproportionate. The court allowed the petition, set aside the dismissal order of LIC and ordered the reinstatement of Manoj Verma.

Decided on: 12-11-2024

Neutral quote: 2024:MPHC-IND:32146 (Manoj Verma v. Life Insurance Corporation of India)

Petitioner’s attorney: MAK Sethi, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Mayank Verma

Defendant’s lawyer: Ms. Jyoti Tiwari

Click here to read/download the order