IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2010 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 23186 of 2004(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.HARIDASAN, SUB STAFF S.R.NO.536469 LIFE-INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA KAYAMKULAM BRANCH OFFICE, KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ZONAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN ZONAL OFFICE, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, MADRAS 600 002. 2. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER L.I.C. OF INDIA, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, P.B.NO.609, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, L.I.C. OF INDIA, KAYAMKULAM. 4. THE CHAIRMAN, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, CENTRAL OFFICE, YOGA KSHEMA, JEEVAN BIMA MARG, P.B. NO. 19953, MUMBAI – 400 021. ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN FOR R1-4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/03/2010, THE COURT, ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C. NO. 23186/2004 --------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER ALONG WITH INTERVIEW FOR PROMOTION DT. 20-11-1992. EXT.P2 CHARGE SHEET DT. 24-8-1993. EXT.P3 REPLY DT. 23-7-1994. EXT.P4 REPORT DT. 1-9-1994. EXT.P5 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DT. 29-12-1994. EXT.P6 REPLY DT. 12-1-1995. EXT.P7 ORDER DT. 23-3-1995. EXT.P8 ORDER DT. 16-9-1995. EXT.P9 JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO. 1015/1996. EXT.P10 REVIEW PETITION DT. 22-12-2003. EXT.P11 ORDER DT. 9-3-2004. EXT.P12 NOTIFICATION DT. 7-1-2005. EXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF DUTIES OF SUB STAFF (PEON) IN THE L.I.C. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: --------------------------------------- EXT.R3(a) LETTER DT. 10-1-1994. EXT.R3(b) CIRCULAR DT. 23-6-1980. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 23186 of 2004 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 12th day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a sub staff of the Life Insurance Corporation of India at Kayamkulam. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner as per Ext. P2 charge sheet. The charges levelled against the petitioner were as follows: “YOU, Shri T. Haridasan, S.R. No. 536469, Sub-staff, L.I.C of India, Branch Office, Kayamkulam are hereby charged as under:- 1. THAT you received an amount of Rs. 171.60 in July, 1992 towards quarterly premium due 3/92 & 6/92 from the policyholder Shri K. Vasu in respect of Policy No.89244676 and remitted the premium due 6/92 into the Office belatedly, i.e. only on 02.12.92 vide OR Sl. No. 1328 and have not remitted premium due 3/92 into the Office. Thus while temporarily misappropriating the amount of Rs. 85.60 in respect of quarterly premium due 6/92 for a period over 3 months, you have misappropriated the amount of Rs. 85.60, premium due 3/92 by not remitting the same to the Office till date and derived pecuniary benefit by defrauding the Corporation. 2. THAT you received an amount of Rs. 85.60 in October, 1992 towards quarterly premium due September '92 in respect of policy No. 89244676 on the Life of Shri. K. Vasu and remitted the amount of premium belatedly into the office only on 02.12.92 vide OR Sl. No. 1356 and thus temporarily misappropriated the sum of Rs. 85.60 for over three months. 3. THAT you have tampered with the office records by using the date seal of the Branch Office by showing incorrect dates of receipt of premiums in respect of Policy No. 89244676 in the name of Shri. K. Vasu for the quarterly premiums due June '92 & September, 1992 in that although the premiums were actually remitted by you to the office only on 02.12.92 as indicated by the counterfoils of OR Sl. No. 1328 and 1356 and the Branch Premium etc., Cash Book, you have affixed the dates of payment on ORs for 6/92 and 9/92 as 26.07.92 and 26.10.92 respectively and also first defaced the dates 26.07.92 and 26.10.92 in the counterfoils thereof and affixed the dates 02.12.92 by the side of the defaced dates so as to make it appear that the premiums have been remitted in time. You have also removed the official receipt for the due March '92 quarterly for the said Policy No. 89244676 on the life W.P.C. No. 23186/2004 -: 2 :- of Shri. K. Vasu and kept the same with you unauthorizedly from 02.12.92 to 24.12.92.” An enquiry was conducted. The petitioner was found guilty and he was imposed with the punishment of reduction in basic pay. The petitioner filed O.P. No. 1015/1996 challenging the charge memo and the punishment order. This Court, by Ext. P9 judgment, permitted the petitioner to file a revision petition before the Chairman of the LIC and that revision petition was directed to be considered on merits. The petitioner filed a revision petition pursuant thereto, which was disposed of by Ext. P11 converting the punishment into reduction in basic pay by six stages. The petitioner is challenging Ext. P11 order seeking the following reliefs: “(i) To call for the records leading up to Exts. P8 and P11 and quash the same by the issuance of the writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order . (ii) To declare that the action of the respondents imposing two punishments for the same offence is bad in law as the action being discriminatory in nature. (iii) To direct the respondents to grant all consequential promotions due to the petitioner from the date of issuance of Ext. P 1 order.” 2. The petitioner raises two contentions. First is that the enquiry itself is vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice insofar as the petitioner was denied assistance of a co-worker of his choice and that the complainant was not examined in the enquiry in order to enable the petitioner to cross examine him and bring out the truth. Regarding the merits, he would contend that the findings of the enquiry officer are not in accordance with the evidence adduced in the enquiry. W.P.C. No. 23186/2004 -: 3 :- 3. A counter affidavit is filed by the LIC controverting the contentions regarding the denial of assistance of a co-worker. They would contend that as per the circulars in force at the relevant time, the delinquent was entitled to assistance of an employee only from the place where the enquiry in respect of the charge sheet issued to the delinquent is being held. The respondents rely on Ext. R3(b) circular in that regard. Regarding the failure on the part of the respondents to examine the complainant in the enquiry, he would submit that there is no inviolable rule that only if the complainant is examined, the charges can be proved. According to him, any evidence having probative value to prove the misconduct would be sufficient to find a delinquent guilty. Even otherwise, according to the respondents, the petitioner never requested the enquiry officer to examine the complainant either by summoning him or by directing the management to produce him. Regarding the merits, counsel would contend that on a reading of the enquiry report itself, it is abundantly clear that the finding was based on legal evidence adduced in the enquiry, which evidence would sufficiently establish guilt of the petitioner. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. Regarding the first contention of the petitioner that he was denied assistance of a co-worker, I find that as per Ext. R3(b) circular, which was in forced at the relevant time, the delinquent employee was entitled to assistance only of an employee from the place where the enquiry in respect of the charge sheet issued to the delinquent is being held. Admittedly, the enquiry was being held at Kayamkulam and the petitioner wanted assistance of an employee from Trivandrum. Since the rules do not provide for assistance of an employee from Trivandrum, evidently the petitioner cannot sustain a W.P.C. No. 23186/2004 -: 4 :- challenge against the enquiry on that ground. 6. Regarding the non-examination of the complainant as a witness, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the LIC, there is no inviolable rule that only if a complainant is examined, the guilt against a delinquent can be established. Departmental enquiry proceedings are not proceedings akin to proceedings before a criminal court or even a civil court. Rules of evidence and procedure as applicable to courts are not applicable to disciplinary enquiries. In fact, the Supreme Court has time and again held that even hear-say evidence is good evidence in departmental and domestic enquiries. Therefore, the fact that the complainant had not been examined in the enquiry does not in any way affect the validity of the enquiry as such. Even otherwise, the petitioner has no case that he had, at any time, requested the enquiry officer to examine the complainant as a witness. Admittedly, the complainant was the petitioner's neighbour. He could have either requested the enquiry officer to request the complainant to give evidence or he could have brought the complainant as his witness, both of which the petitioner has not chosen to do. He could have also requested the enquiry officer to direct the management to produce the complainant as a witness. In fact, in Ext. P3 reply filed by the petitioner before the disciplinary authority to the charge sheet issued to him, his case is that the complainant himself told him that he had no complaint. If that was so, nothing prevented the petitioner from requesting the complainant to give evidence before the enquiry officer to prove his innocence. Having not done so, the petitioner cannot now take the contention that because the complainant was not examined in the enquiry, the enquiry is vitiated. 7. Lastly, I have considered the contention as to whether the W.P.C. No. 23186/2004 -: 5 :- guilt of the petitioner has been established in the enquiry. I have carefully gone through Ext. P4 enquiry report of the enquiry officer. I find that the enquiry officer has examined every aspect of the matter, based on the evidence adduced in the enquiry and has given cogent reasons for coming to the finding that the petitioner is guilty of the charges. It is settled law that this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence in a domestic enquiry to come to a different conclusion. A domestic enquiry cannot be challenged on the ground of sufficiency of evidence. If the materials on record before the enquiry officer is sufficient for a reasonable man to come to the conclusion that the delinquent is guilty, that would suffice. I am of opinion that that rule has been sufficiently complied with in Ext. P4 enquiry report. Therefore, I do not find an merit in an of the contentions of the petitioner and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/