- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44459-DB CCC No. 483 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 483 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI. R. LOKANATHA (AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS) HGA(P) SR.NO.640037 U/SUSPENSION. PARTY-IN-PERSON A ND ADVOCATE HCK., BLR,NO.27, MATHRUKRUPA, RD-LAYOUT, BG ROAD, BANGALORE - 560030 …COMPLAINANT (BY SRI. LOKANATHA R, PARTY IN PERSON) AND: 1. SRI. SIDDHARTHA MOHANTHI C. M. THE CHAIRMAN, LIC OF INDIA, THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, P.B.NO. 19953, REGD. OFF YOGAKSHEMA, JEEVAN BIMA MARG, MUMBAI-400021 2. SRI. SHYAMASUNDAR ZM THE ZONAL MANAGER AND THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY-1, THE LIC OF INDIA ZONAL OFFICE, SOUTH CENTRAL ZONE, Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44459-DB CCC No. 483 of 2025 SAIFABAD, HYDERABAD-600063 3. SRI. P. SRINIVAS. SDM THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIC OF INDIA, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, SHIVAMOGGA-577205 …ACCUSED (BY SRI. RAJESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR A1 TO A3) THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, BY THE COMPLAINANT, PRAYING TO ORDER FOR THE IMMEDIATE REINSTALMENT WITHIN 15 DAYS AS ORDERED IN THE PARA 6(V) IN WA NO.439/2023 VIDE ORDER DATED 24.10.2024 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The complainant has filed the present complaint alleging willful disobedience of para 6(v) of an order dated 24.10.2024 passed in Writ Appeal No.439/2023 (S-RES). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44459-DB CCC No. 483 of 2025 2. The complainant was employed as a HGA programmer Grade 2 with the Life Insurance Corporation of India [Corporation]. Disciplinary proceedings were instituted against the complainant and the complainant was also placed under suspension. He was subsequently removed from service. The complainant challenged the suspension order as well as the order of dismissal from service by filing a writ petition being W.P.No.15264/2022 (S-RES). The said petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court by an order dated 22.2.2023. The petition was allowed in part and the dismissal order was set aside with liberty to the respondents to institute a de novo enquiry against the complainant's association with M/s. Metro Marketing Network Company and the alleged unauthorised absence. The complainant was directed to be reinstated forthwith to the post that he had held as on 24.11.2012. 3. The Corporation preferred an appeal against the said decision before the Division Bench of this Court [Writ Appeal No.439/2023 (S-RES)]. The said appeal was disposed of by order dated 24.10.2024. The complainant's allegation is that the said - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44459-DB CCC No. 483 of 2025 order has not been complied with. The operative part of the said order is set out below: 6. In view of the above position, the appeal deserves to be allowed in part with the following directions, (i) The part of the order of learned Single Judge in so far as directing for reinstatement of the petitioner- respondent No.1 is set aside. (ii) The appellants-employer shall not be obliged to reinstate respondent No.1 during the pendency of de novo inquiry which may be conducted by the employer. (iii) The inquiry which may be proposed by the appellants-employer shall be completed within a period of four months from today. (iv) If fresh inquiry is to be initiated, the same shall be initiated within ten days from today. (v) If the appellants-employer is not inclined to conduct fresh inquiry and wants to leave the issues as they stand, respondent No.1 shall be reinstated within fifteen days from today. 4. It is the complainant's case that a fresh enquiry was not initiated within a period of 10 days as directed and therefore, in terms of para 6(v) of the aforesaid order, the Corporation was required to reinstate the complainant. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44459-DB CCC No. 483 of 2025 5. There is no dispute that the Corporation had issued a letter dated 25.10.2024, which is on the next day, informing the complainant that an enquiry officer has been appointed to enquire into the charges levelled against the complainant in terms of the Charge Sheet dated 14.12.2011. The enquiry officer had also scheduled a preliminary hearing on 04.11.2024. 6. It is contented on behalf of the complainant that since the preliminary hearing was scheduled beyond a period of 10 days, the directions issued in terms of the order dated 24.10.2024 have been wilfully disobeyed. It is also contended that a complete charge sheet was provided to the complainant after a period of 20 days and therefore, it cannot be construed that the enquiry has been initiated within a period of 10 days as stipulated under the order dated 24.10.2024. 7. We find no merit in the aforesaid contentions. Since the enquiry was initiated on the very next day of the order dated 24.10.2024, there is no obligation for the Corporation to reinstate the complainant. We are unable to accept that the Corporation has willfully disobeyed the order passed by this Court. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44459-DB CCC No. 483 of 2025 8. The complaint is, accordingly, closed. 9. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE ND List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56