The judgment establishes the importance of providing access to relevant documents and expert opinion in disciplinary proceedings, emphasizing the principles of natural justice and fair treatment.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings dated 18.03.2010 issued by the 2ndrespondent and the consequent proceedings dated 23.06.2010. The petitioner was dismissed from service vide proceedings dated 18.03.2010 and the 1st respondent confirmed the punishment vide proceedings dated 23.06.2010.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Administrative Officer in the respondent/corporation in the year 1992 through Direct Recruitment. The petitioner was promoted as an Administrative Officer in the year 1996. Vide proceedings dated 09.09.2005 the petitioner was suspended based on certain allegations. A charge memo was issued on 03.04.2007 whereby the petitioner is alleged to have tampered with the policies of the customers of the corporation. It is the specific allegation against the petitioner that he had indulged in tampering with the vital fields in the insurance policies of customers such as plan and term, sum assured, premium, FUP, Age, name and status etc., It is also alleged that loan payment vouchers were processed and thereby caused financial loss to the respondent/corporation.

3. Along with the charge-sheet of the respondent/corporation dated 13.04.2007 Annexure-A of the charge sheet relates to the various documents relied upon by the respondent/corporation.

Annexure-B contains the provisional list of witnesses.

4. The petitioner after receipt of the charge sheet issued a reply dated 18.04.2007and sought for copies of the documents. The respondent/corporation issued a reply to the letter of the petitioner and informed that the copies of the documents shall be furnished during enquiry proceedings. The letter dated 14.05.2007 addressed by the respondent was not considered by the respondent on the reply dated 18.04.2007 of the petitioner. The petitioner had made several representations seeking the requisite documents to enable him to submit his defence. The several representations and requests are part of record. However, there was no response from the respondent/corporation. The petitioner was found guilty by the enquiry officer of the allegations alleged and as such the petitioner was dismissed from service vide proceedings dated 18.03.2010.

5. The petitioner appealed against the said order before the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent had dismissed the appeal vide order dated 23.06.2010.

6. The order dated 18.03.2010 is perused. The petitioner was imposed the punishment of dismissal from service and also recovery of Rs.9,14,896/- in terms of regularizations 39(1)(g) and 39(1)(c) respectively of the LIC of India (Staff Regulations) 1960. Upon perusal of the impugned proceedings, it is mentioned that copies of all documents relied upon by the prosecution were handed over to the petitioner during the first hearing only. It is pertinent to mention the date of the charge-sheet as 03.04.2007 and also the date of commencement of enquiry as 29.03.2008. On the strength of the evidence of PW.1 i.e., Ch.Muttaiah, the then Branch Manager, CAB, Kakinada has confirmed that the signatures and initials on some of the documents mentioned in the Annexure A of the Charge Sheet are that of the petitioner.

7. There appears to have been no reference to third party expert to either compare the signatures, initials of the charge-sheeted officer and the charges were found to be proved based on the evidence of PW.1, who appears to have concluded that the signatures and the initials belong to the petitioner.

8. The appeal against the said proceedings was dismissed upholding the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority of dismissal of the petitioner from service and recovery of Rs.9,14,896/-and concluded that the punishment is commensurate with gravity of misconduct of which the petitioner was found guilty of the offences charged.

9. The respondents/corporation has filed a detailed counter and have submitted that there is no infirmity in the procedure adopted before the enquiry officer. It is stated that the petitioner was found