Hemant Gupta JUDGMENT
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal arises from a judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat dated 10 April 2018. The Division Bench, in a Letters Patent Appeal arising from an order of a learned Single Judge dated 11 July 2017, allowed the Respondent, who had instituted proceedings Under Article 226 of the Constitution, to respond to a notice to show cause issued by the Appellant Under Regulation 39(4) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations 19601. However, the Appellant was directed not to issue final orders during the pendency of the appeal filed by the Respondent against his conviction for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act 19882 and the Indian Penal Code 18603.
3. The Respondent was appointed as a Probationary Development Officer by the Appellant on 27 September 1990. His services were confirmed on 4 December 1991. On 16 February 1996, a charge-sheet was served on the Respondent containing the following allegations:
i. That, you introduced 2 proposal Nos. 7377 and 7529 on the lives of Shri PS Vyas and Shri RP Mehta through the agency, which resulted in issuance of policy for sum assured of Rs. 10,00,000/-;
ii. That, you certified as true a Fake School Leaving Certificate dated 13.07.1974 issued by the City High School, Raipur, Ahmedabad submitted the same as evidence of age along with the proposals for Life Insurance on the lives of the aforesaid Shri PS Vyas and Shri RP Mehta;
iii. That, you submitted a Moral Hazard Report dated 14.12.1990 in form No. 3251 recommending acceptance of the said proposals without making independent and discreet inquiries and without satisfying about the genuineness of the proposals as required to be done before the submission of the proposals;
iv. That, it has been revealed that the proposers Shri PS Vyas and Shri RP Mehta are non-existent persons.
4. A disciplinary enquiry was convened in which the Respondent participated. The inquiry officer, in his report dated 17 April 1997, noted that the Respondent had unconditionally accepted the charges. The charges against the Respondent were held to be proven. On 16 June 1997, a notice to show cause was issued to the Respondent, asking him to explain as to why a penalty of reducing his basic pay to the minimum of the time scale Under Regulation 39(1)(d) of the 1960 Regulations should not be imposed upon him. The Respondent submitted his response. By an order dated 15 July 1997, the disciplinary committee held the Respondent guilty of misconduct and imposed the penalty of reducing his basic pay to the minimum of the time scale.
5. A Criminal prosecution4 was instituted by the Central Bureau of Investigation5 against the Respondent and two other employees of the Appellant before the Court of the Special Judge, CBI, Ahmedabad. The Respondent was prosecuted for offences Under Sections