The principle of proportionality in disciplinary actions requires penalties to align with the severity of misconduct, particularly when mitigating circumstances and lack of prior incidents exist.

ORDER :

Hemant Chandangoudar, J.

This writ petition challenges the order dated 31.10.2014 passed by the third respondent, whereby the petitioner was removed from service in exercise of the powers conferred under Regulation 39 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 .

2. The petitioner states that the third respondent, acting under Regulation 39(1)(f) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 , issued an order dated 31.03.2015 removing the petitioner from service. The said order of removal was subsequently confirmed by the first respondent by order dated 09.01.2016.

3. While serving as an Assistant, the petitioner was issued a charge memo dated 02.01.2014. The charge memo alleged that during his tenure as a Cashier at the Udumalpet Branch Office in the Coimbatore Division, the petitioner had collected cash towards certain insurance premium policies but failed to remit the same immediately. It was further alleged that the petitioner attempted to adjust the outstanding amount on 16.02.2013 by tendering two self-cheques drawn on City Union Bank, Udumalpet, for a total sum of Rs.1,14,855/-. Both the cheques were dishonoured by the bank 22 days later due to “insufficient funds,” which, according to the respondents, amounted to misappropriation of the said amount.

4. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show cause notice dated 31.01.2014, explaining a mitigating circumstance in respect of one transaction, wherein a policyholder, who was a friend of the petitioner, sought to remit a sum of Rs.73,600/- in cash without producing a PAN card. On the assurance of the policyholder that the amount would be settled through his own bank account, the petitioner issued a personal cheque. The petitioner further stated that, owing to the lapse of nearly one year from the date of the alleged incident, he was unable to recollect the details of the remaining allegations in the charge memo and, therefore, sought access to all relevant records to enable him to submit an effective explanation. As the explanation was found to be unsatisfactory, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner.

5. The petitioner appeared before the Inquiry Officer and admitted the charges. He further stated that he had met with an accident on 22.02.2013 and was hospitalized thereafter, which prevented him from remitting the amount within the prescribed time. When questioned as to whether he had issued similar cheques on any other occasion, the petitioner stated that he could not recollect the same. The Inquiry Officer recorded these statements and submitted a report holding that the charge against the petitioner stood proved.

6. Upon receipt of the inquiry report, the third respondent issued a second show cause notice dated 14.08.2014 calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why the penalty of removal from service under Regulation 39(1)(f) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 should not be imposed. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 01.09.2014. After considering the same, the third respondent passed the impugned order of removal from service, which was thereafter confirmed by the first and second respondents while exercising their appellate and revisional powers, respectively. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been filed.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the alleged incident occurred on 16.02.2013, whereas the charge memo was issued only on 02.01.2014, after an inordinate delay of nearly eleven month