Back
2023 Supreme(All) 2075
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
AJIT KUMAR, J.
Shri Krishna Mishra - Petitioner
Versus
Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44003 of 2016
Decided On : 05-05-2023
For the Petitioner: P.K. Singhal, Vinay Kumar Mishra and Vishesh Rajvanshi.
For the Respondents: Manish Goyal, Pramod Kumar Dubey, Sanjit Singh and Sanjeev Singh.
IMPORTANT POINT
The disciplinary authority must substantiate its findings with clear evidence; mere disagreement with an enquiry officer's report is insufficient to uphold charges.
Headnote:
Disciplinary Action - Life Insurance Corporation - Regulation 39 - The court examined the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, focusing on the validity of charges related to maturity claim payments, the necessity of original policy bonds, and the authority of agents from different branches, ultimately finding insufficient evidence to uphold the charges.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Senior Branch Manager at a Life Insurance Corporation, faced disciplinary action for allegedly approving maturity claims without proper verification, leading to financial losses. The charges included issues with surety and indemnity bonds signed by agents from different branches.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disciplinary authority failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the charges against the petitioner. The enquiry officer had exonerated the petitioner on most charges, and the disciplinary authority's disagreement lacked substantive justification.
Issues: Whether the disciplinary authority's findings were justified based on the evidence presented, and whether the petitioner was liable for the alleged financial losses due to improper verification of maturity claims.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the disciplinary authority must provide clear evidence and reasoning to support its findings, especially when disagreeing with the enquiry officer's conclusions. In the absence of such evidence, the charges could not be upheld.
Result: The court quashed the disciplinary authority's order and reinstated the petitioner with all consequential benefits.
JUDGMENT :
Ajit Kumar, J.
Heard Sri Vishesh Rajvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.K. Dubey, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
2. The petitioner who was working with respondent Life Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ''Corporation'') as class I officer and was posted at the District Branch Office, Kanpur in the capacity of Senior Branch Manager was subjected to disciplinary proceedings in the matter of disbursement of maturity claim under police No. 058472150 in favour of Jagdip Kumar Anand and also payment of maturity claim under policy No. 058472329 in favour of one Pradeep Kumar Agarwal.
3. The charge-sheet issued to the petitioner in connection with payment made to Jagdip Kumar Anand was to the effect that surety form subject to which payment settlement was made, was signed by one Sri P.K. Gautam an agent of another branch and the indemnity bond and discharge voucher were signed by one Mr. S.C. Tiwari an agent also of another branch. Further these two documents were witnesses by one Dr. R.K. Gupta, Veterinary Officer of Kanpur. Since payment was issued by C.B.O. 4 (Kanpur Branch Office of Corporation), the issue was raised that beneficiary of the maturity stood impersonated.
4. Yet another ofshoot of the charge was that signatures of Jagdip Kumar Anand upon receipt were different from those made on the proposal form.
5. The second charge was that petitioner while working as Senior Branch Manager failed to verify the authenticity of the claim of policy holder before approving payment of Rs.64,975/- maturity amount vide cheque dated 6.3.2006 drawn in favour of Sri Jagdip Kumar Anand and so with the encashment of the said amount, Corporation suffered with financial loss.
6. The third charge was also similar in nature in respect of payment of maturity claim of Rs.57,700/- by issuing a cheque dated 1.6.2006 in favour of Sri P.K. Agarwal. Here in this charge, the issue was that policy bond and discharge vouchers were submitted by policy holder only on 16.6.2006 whereas claim voucher was issued on 28th March, 2006 stood encashed. The cheque was issued on 31st March, 2006 which would encashed on 2nd May, 2006. Thus in substance, the charge got impersonated and Corporation stood defrauded and suffered financial loss of Rs.57,700/-.
7. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet. In respect of charge No. 1, he stated that surety was signed by Sri P.K.Gautam who was a CM Club member with an authorized agency code bearing No. 67/23S registered at CBO 9 and had sound financial backing of 30,000/- monthly income as an agent, he owned independent house and car worth valuation of Rs.20,00,00/- for just a claim of Rs.64,975/-. The sureties were witness by a respectable citizen R.K. Gupta, a Veterinary Officer in Kanpur. Officer admitted that indemnity bond and discharge vouchers were witnessed by one Sri S.C. Tiwari, an another CM Club member with an authorized agency code being No. 05901/232 registered at CBO 1, and the charge was that these two agents did not belong to CBO-4 was not maintainable because there was no such requirement that such surety be filed and so also indemnity bond and discharge voucher be witnessed by an agent of the same branch. He referred to the claim manual and other instructions of the Corporation in that regard, and therefore, pleaded that charge was absolutely ill founded. He claimed to have taken protection while approving security regarding difference in signatures of Jagdip Kumar Anand on the claim document and that on the proposal form. He claimed that signatures as per his own eyes appeared to be identical and would be so visible from the naked eyes. He pleaded that in the month of 2006, he had settled more than 800 maturity as he claims, and therefore, involvement of the two CM Club members not belonging to the branch did not give him any reason to doubt about correctness of the claim.
8. He repelled the second charge for the same reason as second charge wa
