IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2011 / 25TH ASWINA 1933 WA.No. 1210 of 2011() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DT.18.3.2011 IN W.P.9C) NO.33543/2007 APPELLANT/ PETITIONER IN WRIT PETITION ------------------- R.PUSHPALATHA, AGED 47 YEARS, W/O.A.K.SIVANANDAN, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, NEDUMKANDAM BRANCH, RESIDING AT MAYOORAM HOUSE, PULLAD, THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN WRIT PETITION ------------------------------------------- 1. THE CHAIRMAN, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, "YOGAKSHEMA", JEEVAN BHIMA MARG, MUMBAI - 400 021. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, "YOGAKSHEMA", JEEVAN BHIMA MARG, MUMBAI - 400 021. 3. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (PERSONNEL), LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, "YOGAKSHEMA", JEEVAN BHIMA MARG, MUMBAI - 400 021. 4. THE MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, "JEEVAN PRAKASH", NAGAMPADOM, KOTTAYAM - 686 001. ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN FOR R1 TO R4 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD 11.10.2011, THE COURT ON 17/10/2011 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Ag.C.J. & P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ------------------------------- W.A.No.1210 OF 2011 -------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ P.S.Gopinathan, J. The appellant is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.33543/2007. She is working as Administrative Officer in Life Insurance Corporation of India, of which the 1st respondent is the Chairman. While in service, it was brought to the notice of the respondents that the appellant had taken 19 policies in her name as well as in the name of her family members. On the strength of one policy on which a house loan was availed and which was assigned in favour of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, the appellant had availed two other loans against the provisions contained in the Manual. On yet another policy also, the appellant availed similar loan against the provisions of Manual. Consequently, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated. Ext.P4 is the copy of the charge sheet. During enquiry, the appellant pleaded guilty. The Enquiry Officer proceeded with the enquiry and on completion of the enquiry, a W.A.No.1210/2011 2 report finding the appellant guilty was submitted before the authorities. The disciplinary authority accepted the report and show cause notice was served upon the appellant calling her to show cause for not imposing major penalty. The appellant pleaded that it was a mistake committed on her part. However, the disciplinary authority was not pleased to accept the plea of mistake. By Ext.P9 order, penalty of reducing the appellant to a lower rank was imposed. Though she preferred appeal, by Ext.P11 order it was dismissed. Assailing Exts.P9 and P11, the Writ Petition was preferred. 2. The learned Single Judge after perusing the charge sheet as well as the proceedings and report of enquiry arrived at a conclusion that the finding of guilt by the Enquriy Officer as well as by the Disciplinary and appellate authority is absolutely correct. The appellant, for the first time, raised a contention before the Single Judge that she admitted the charge sheet under coercion. The learned Single Judge didn't entertain that plea as it is devoid of any bonafides or merit. Consequently, the learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the finding of W.A.No.1210/2011 3 guilt. As regards the punishment imposed, the learned Single Judge found that the charges alleged and proved spell out very serious misconduct and in that circumstance it could not be held that the punishment of reduction in rank is shockingly disproportionate so as to be interfered with. Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed. Now this appeal. 3. We have heard Advocate Sri.M.V.Bose, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as perused the records. 4. The relevant portions of the charge which is quoted in the judgment impugned, the summary which is mentioned above would show that the appellant had committed serious misconduct. It cannot be said that it was a mistake because, the appellant herself had processed the application and availed the loan without sending the application for loan through the proper channel. It is not in dispute that once a policy is assigned in favour of the Life Insurance Corporation on availing a loan, no further loan can be availed on the same policy. But the appellant W.A.No.1210/2011 4 had availed two more loans on one policy and a second loan on another policy. In total, a sum of Rs.75,190/- was seen availed by the appellant as against the provisions in the manual. She, herself had passed the loan without sending the file to any other officer. Malafide intention is evident by the stealthy transaction. Therefore, we find that the learned Single Judge was correct in finding no reason to interfere with the finding of guilt. As opined by the learned Single Judge, we find that the punishment imposed, having due regard to the nature of allegations in the charge and the official status of the appellant, is not at all shockingly disproportionate so as to be interfered in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The appeal is devoid of merits. In the result, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Acting Chief Justice) (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) ps/12/11