IMPORTANT POINT
When the misconduct is proved by delinquent’s own admission and conduct, dismissal would follow.

Headnote:Service law – Departmental proceeding – Delinquent admitting issuing receipts without receiving money – Secondly admitting it as mistake due to pressure of work and some family circumstances/worries – Thirdly, requesting for leniency in punishment – Authorities rightly holding charges to be proved – Principle of natural justice fully observed in the proceedings – Dismissal not unjustified. (Para 22, 25, 29)
       (2005) 10 SCC 84 – Referred
       Facts of the case:
       In the year 1960, the appellant was appointed as an Assistant in Life Insurance Corporation of India- respondent No.1.
       During the year 1977, it came to the notice of the officials of respondent No.1 (LIC) that the appellant, in discharge of his duties, issued as many as seven receipts including special premium receipts to the policyholders without receiving any premium amount from them.
       The respondent (LIC) dismissed the appellant from the service.
       Central Government Industrial Tribunal set aside the dismissal order.
       The Division Bench of High Court allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.1 (LIC), set aside the order of the Single Judge and the award of the Tribunal and upheld the dismissal order passed by the respondent.
       Finding of the Court:
       There is no error in the dismissal.
       Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 04.07.2007 passed by the High Court at Calcutta in APO No.591 of 2003 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (respondent No.1 herein), set aside the order of the Single Judge and the award of the Tribunal and upheld the dismissal order passed by respondent No.1.

2) In order to appreciate the issues involved in the appeal, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts hereinbelow.

3) In the year 1960, the appellant was appointed as an Assistant in the set up of respondent No.1-Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as “LIC”). At the relevant time, he was posted in the Branch Office of LIC at a place called Burir Bagan, PO & District Burdwan (WB).

4) During the year 1977, it came to the notice of the officials of respondent No.1 (LIC) that the appellant, in discharge of his duties, issued as many as seven receipts including special premium receipts to the policyholders without receiving any premium amount from them. The details of the policies such as their numbers, names of policyholders, due date of premium and the amount of premium are mentioned below:

	Policy No.	Name	Due Premium	Total
i)	9764225	Sri D. Hazra	July 1973 July 1974 July 1977 & January 1977 @ Rs.62.75 each	Rs. 251.00
ii)	31098245	Sri S. Mukherjee	June, 1975 December, 1975 June, 1976 December, 1976 & June, 1977 @ Rs.147.40 each	Rs. 737.00
iii)	30982313	Sri S.K. Roy	May, 1974 August, 1974 November, 1974 February, 1975 May, 1975 August, 1975 November, 1975 & February, 1976 May, 1976 August, 1976 November, 1976 February, 1977 @ Rs.33.84 each	Rs. 406.08
iv)	31210746	Sri T.N. Samanta	April, 1975 & April, 1977 @ Rs.410.60 each	Rs. 821.20
v)	31214187	Sri P.K. Mallick	September, 1976 & March, 1977 @Rs.158.40 each	Rs. 316.80
vi)	31211624	Sri N.C. Hazra	August, 1976 & February, 1977 @ Rs.881.30 each	Rs. 1,762.60
vii)	312111625	Sri U.C. Hazra	February, 1975 February, 1976 August, 1976 & February, 1977 @ Rs.829.70 each	Rs. 3,318.80

5) After being prima facie satisfied on verification of the records that the appellant had committed the alleged misconduct, the LIC placed the appellant under suspension and then issued the charge-sheet under Regulation 39 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “the Regulations”) to the appellant on 07.11.1977 (Annexure-A) setting out therein the specific charges with details mentioned above. The appellant was asked to submit his reply.

6) On 28.11.1977, the appellant replied to the charges (Annexure-B). The appellant, in substance, admitted the issuance of receipts by him and also admitted non-receipt of the amount against any of these receipts from any of the policyholders. All he said was that he had neither any mala fide intention nor any oblique motive behind this. According to the appellant, it occurred due to the pressure of work and family circumstances/worries. The appellant, therefore, prayed respondent No.1 to take lenient view in the case against him.

7) Dissatisfied with the reply of the appellant, respondent No.1 referred the matter to the Enquiry Officer for holding regular Departmental Enquiry into the charges leveled against the appellant as per the service regulations. The Departmental Enquiry was, accordingly, held in which the appellant fully participated. The respondent (LIC) adduced evidence to prove the charges.

8) On 31.07.1981, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report (Annexure-D). The Enquiry Officer, in his detailed report running into 27 pages, held the charges leveled against the appellant as proved. He recorded the following findings against the ap

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

2017 Supreme(SC) 930

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAR.K. AGRAWAL, ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.Mihir Kumar Hazara Choudhury – Appellant(s) VERSUSLife Insurance Corpn. & Anr. – Respondent(s)Civil Appeal No. 7612 of 2009Decided On : 11-09-2017

IMPORTANT POINTWhen the misconduct is proved by delinquent’s own admission and conduct, dismissal would follow.

Cases Referred (1)

Judicial Analysis

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.K. AGRAWAL, ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.
Mihir Kumar Hazara Choudhury – Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Life Insurance Corpn. & Anr. – Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal No. 7612 of 2009
Decided On : 11-09-2017

IMPORTANT POINT
When the misconduct is proved by delinquent’s own admission and conduct, dismissal would follow.