Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 2169
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ELIPE DHARMA RAO & M. VENUGOPAL, JJ.
Vasanthi
Versus
The Life Insurance Corporation of India, rep. By its Chairman, LIC of India, Mumbai & Others
W.A.No. 1279 of 2010
Decided On : 26-06-2013
For the Appellant:R. Singaravelan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R2, V. Parthiban, Advocate, R1 & R3, Served, No Appearance.
The court has the authority to impose penalties consistent with the magnitude and misconduct imputed and the evidence in support thereof. The penalty should suit the offence and the offender and should not be either vindictive or unduly harsh.
Headnote:
tampering - disciplinary proceedings - Regulation 39(1)(c) and (d) of L.I.C. of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - The court found the charges of tampering with premium positions proved and imposed a penalty of recovery of loss to the Corporation and reduction in basic pay. The penalty of reduction in basic pay was set aside and instead, a penalty of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect for a period of one year was imposed.
Fact of the Case:
The Appellant was charged with deliberately tampering with premium positions and records pertaining to 17 policies, resulting in settlement of Surrender Value payments. The disciplinary authority imposed a penalty of recovery of loss to the Corporation and reduction in basic pay. The Appellant challenged the order, arguing procedural infraction, lack of evidence, and disproportionate punishment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the charges of tampering with premium positions proved and imposed a penalty of recovery of loss to the Corporation and reduction in basic pay. The penalty of reduction in basic pay was set aside and instead, a penalty of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect for a period of one year was imposed.
Issues: The issues included procedural infraction, lack of evidence, and disproportionate punishment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the charges of tampering with premium positions were proved and imposed a penalty of recovery of loss to the Corporation and reduction in basic pay. The penalty of reduction in basic pay was set aside and instead, a penalty of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect for a period of one year was imposed.
Final Decision: The Writ Appeal was allowed in part, setting aside the penalty of reduction in basic pay and imposing a penalty of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect for a period of one year. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.
M. Venugopal, J.
1. The Appellant/Petitioner has projected the present Writ Appeal as against the order dated 26.04.2010 in W.P.No.21109 of 2000 passed by the Learned Single Judge in dismissing the Writ Petition.
2. The Learned Single Judge, while passing the order in W.P.No.21109 of 2000 dated 26.04.2010 [filed by the Appellant/ Petitioner], has, inter alia, observed, in paragraph 19, as follows:
"19. In the instant case, a full-fledged enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer appointed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India. The evidence of T.Loganathan and the Expert's opinion marked would go to show that it was only the petitioner who tampered with the records and committed irregularities and thereby caused loss to the Corporation. The Enquiry Officer's finding is based on evidence legally admissible. The Enquiry officer had never strayed out of the materials brought on record by the parties."
Also, in paragraphs 21 to 23 of the impugned order in the Writ Petition, the Learned Single Judge has observed hereunder:
"21. Nothing has been demonstrated in the instant case by the petitioner that there was procedural infraction committed by the respondents which led to manifest injustice. Nothing also has been shown that there is violation of principles of natural justice in the conduct of the enquiry by the Enquiry Officer. This Court cannot act as an appellate authority to substitute its own reasons to upset the decision of the respondents.
22. As there is sufficient materials to establish the guilt of the petitioner in the departmental enquiry conducted by the Life Insurance Corporation of India, the question of interfering with the decision taken by the respondents does not arise for consideration.
23. Coming to the quantum of punishment awarded to the petitioner, it is found that recovery of loss to the Corporation and reduction in basic pay to the lowest time scale of pay viz., Rs.1950/= was ordered by the disciplinary authority and the same was confirmed by the appellate authority."
and resultantly held that 'It is not a case where the punishment awarded to the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate to the charges established as against her. Within one year from the date of joining service, it appears that the petitioner has committed irregularities alleged against her. Financial loss has occasioned to the Corporation. The petitioner, who was completely trusted by the employer, has breached the trust. In fact, the Corporation has taken a lenient view in the matter of punishment of an employee who had committed serious lapses which resulted in financial loss to the Corporation etc.' and dismissed the Writ Petition without costs.
3. According to the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Petitioner, the order of the Learned Single Judge dated 26.04.2010 in W.P.No.21109 of 2000 is contrary to law and based on mis-appreciation of the facts of the case.
4. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Petitioner urges before this Court that the Learned Single Judge has rested his findings based on mere surmises, without even probing into the merits and facts of the case.
5. That apart, it is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Petitioner that in the instant case, there is no independent evidence available against the Appellant/Petitioner to link her with the charges and further, the only evidence of T.Loganathan (Appellant's Superior) who was Higher Grade Assistant at that time and whose duty was to verify whether the entries were made in the forms by his subordinates correctly or not, was given much importance when the Appellant herself made allegations against him that it was he who was responsible for the error occurred in the policy statements of various individuals.
6. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant vehemently projects an argument that the Appellant/Petitioner was a probationer and she was guided by the Senior Official T.Loganathan (Higher Grade Assistant) and others and even assuming, w
