SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1989 Supreme(Mad) 521

1990 1 MLJ 457
T.B. Adhikesavalu
Versus
Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India And Ors.
Decided on : 8/11/1989
.

Release on probation not a bar for disciplinary authority to consider about question of punishment independently.

Headnote:Service Law-Disciplinary proceedings - Employee released by Court under probation of Offenders Act-Such release does not prevent disciplinary authority from considering question of punishment independently.

       

JUDGMENT

Nainar Sundaram, J.

1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge in W.P.No. 4775 of 1979. The appellant herein was the petitioner in the writ petition. The respondents herein were the respondents in the writ petition. We shall refer to the parties as per their array in the Writ Petition.

2. The petitioner was a Development Officer in the employ of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, hereinafter referred to as the Corporation, and while he was functioning in Namakkal Taluk, it transpired during the claim of investigation of life policy on the life of Kalianna Goundar of Peramandampalayam village, Namakkal Taluk, that the claim was not a genuine one and hence the case was referred to Special Police Establishment/Central Bureau of Investigation, Madras, for a more detailed investigation. The first information report was filed on 18.7.1974 in which the petitioner was shown as the first accused. He, along with others, was found to have had been instrumental in getting the concerned policy issued by the first-respondent in the year 1972; and making a fraudulent claim on the basis that the said policy holder died on 27.1.1973. The fact that transpired was, the said Kalianna Gounder had died ten or fifteen years prior to the policy and was not even alive on the date of the proposal. A charge sheet was filed against the petitioner and three others on 28.5.1975. The petitioner was suspended from service on 6.6.1975 pending enquiry into the case. On 23.5.1976 the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem, convicted the petitioner and three others under Sections 120-B, 420 and 511, I.P.C. and sentenced them to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 each in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. The petitioner paid the fine of Rs. 1,000. The petitioner filed an appeal to the Sessions Judge, Salem, and the appellate court by judgment dated 31.8.1976, while confirming the conviction, modified the sentence with a direction to release the petitioner under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act on his executing a bond in a sum of Rs. 1,000 with two sureties for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem, to be of good behaviour for one year and to appear and receive sentence when called upon during that period and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour.

3. On 26.11.1976, the first-respondent issued a charge sheet-cum-show cause notice and the same stands extracted as 'Annexure A' to this Judgment. The petitioner replied to this charge sheet-cum-show cause notice and his reply is, as found in 'Annexure B' to this Judgment. From the reply, we find that the petitioner preferred a revision in Crl. Revision Case No. 812 of 1976 to this Court. This Revision was dismissed on 3.4.1978. On 15.4.1978 a further memorandum was issued by the first-respondent to the petitioner, as found in 'Annexure C to this judgment. The petitioner offered an elaborate explanation on 15.6.1978, pleading for condonation of the carelessness on his part and giving him an opportunity to continue to serve the Corporation by reinstating him into service. On 21.7.1978, the first-respondent passed orders of removal from service of the petitioner as per 'Annexure D' to this judgment. The petitioner took up the matter to the second-respondent and the second-respondent, by his order dated 7.3.1979 did not interfere with the order of the first-respondent and rejected the appeal of the petitioner. A copy of the order of the second-respondent is found as 'Annexure E' to this judgment. The petitioner went further to the third-respondent by way of a memorial and the third-respondent passed orders on 4.8.1979 finding no warrant for interference and rejecting the memorial of the petitioner. The order of the third-respondent is as found in 'Annexure F' to this judgment. Thereafter the petitioner came to this Court by way of writ petition and the learned singl


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top