APHC010730532018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 38872/2018 Between: R.DIVAKAR REDDY, S/O.LATE R.KONDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC:RETIRED ASSISTANT, LIC(SR No.655428), D.No.6-1-127-10, LAXMINAGAR EXTENSION, ANANTAPURAM. ...PETITIONER AND 1. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, REP, BY ITS CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL OFFICE, YOUGAKSHEMA, JEEVANBEEMA MARG., MUMBAI-400021, MAHARASHTRA STATE. 2. ZONAL MANAGER-CUM-APPELLATE AUTHORITY, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, SOUTH CENTRAL ZONAL OFFICE, JEEVAN BHAGYA, SAIFABAD, HYDERABAD – 500063. 3. SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER-CUM-DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, JEEVAN PRAKASH, KADAPA-516004, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. BATHULA RAJ KIRAN 2. SINGAM SRINIVASA RAO The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “.... a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Orders ERD/SCZ/2016-2017- 7, dated 26.05.2017 passed by the 1st Respondent wherein 2 confirming the orders dated 21.03.2016, 08.09.2015 held against the Petitioner by the Respondents 2 and 3 are arbitrary, illegal and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same.” 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, Ms.K.Salini, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that Court may pass appropriate orders. 3. Learned Standing Counsel for Respondents would submit that Court may pass appropriate orders. 4. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material placed on record would show that, it is alleged against the Petitioner that he had disobeyed the directions issued by the Senior Divisional Manager. Accordingly, a charge was framed against the Petitioner. After conducting enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority has concluded the proceedings by imposing punishment of Censure in terms of the Regulation 39(1)(a) of the LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. Against the same, the Petitioner preferred Memorandum before the Appellate Authority and the same was dismissed by confirming the decision taken by the Disciplinary Authority, against which, the Petitioner filed the present writ petition. 5. Having heard the submissions on behalf of both sides, and after going through the impugned order, this Court does not find any merit in the petition. The impugned order does not brook interference of this Court by exercising the writ jurisdiction. Hence, the petition deserves dismissal. 3 6. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:28.04.2025 Dinesh 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.38872 of 2018 Dt.28.04.2025 Dinesh