IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2011 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 33543 of 2007(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- R.PUSHPALATHA, AGED 43 YEARS, W/O.A.K.SIVANANDAN, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, NEDUMKANDAM BRANCH, RESIDING AT MAYOORAM HOUSE, PULLAD, THIRUVALLA. BY ADVS. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE CHAIRMAN LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA "YOGAKSHEMA" JEEVAN BIMA MARG, MUMBAI 400 021. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA "YOGAKSHEMA" JEEVAN BIMA MARG, MUMBAI 400 021. 3. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (PERSONNEL) LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA "YOGAKSHEMA" JEEVAN BIMA MARG, MUMBAI 400 021. 4. THE MANAGER LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA 'JEEVEN PRAKASH' NAGAMPADOM, KOTTAYAM 686 001. ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN FOR R1 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18 /03 / 2011 , THE COURT ON 18/03/2011 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.No.33543 OF 2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 15.3.2005 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF PRELIMINARY HEARING DATED 10.10.2006. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 10.10.2006 ADDRESSED TO THE ENQUIRY OFFICER BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 9.6.2006 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 29.11.2006 OF THE ENQUIRY OFFICER. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 8.1.2007 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM R3. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 14.2.2007 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY R3. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 9.3.2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R3. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.6.2007 ISSUED BY R3 TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 9.8.2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R1. EXT.P10(a): TRUE COPY OF THE LIFE INSURANCE POLICY RECORD. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.9.2007 ISSUE BY R1. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBT: NIL //TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE. S.SIRI JAGAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 33543 OF 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of March , 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an Administrative Officer of Life Insurance Corporation of India. She herself and her family members have taken 19 policies in their names from the Life Insurance Corporation. On the strength of one of the policies, the petitioner availed of a loan. Subsequently, the petitioner availed of another loan on the same policy, in which the petitioner had already taken the earlier loan. According to the petitioner, that was only a mistake and she did not immediately recollect that she had already taken a loan on the strength of the very same policy earlier. But treating it as a misconduct, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. A charge memo was issued. Enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was found guilty. A show cause notice for penalty was issued. The petitioner's reply was obtained and ultimately the punishment of reduction to a lower rank was imposed on the WPC.No.33543 of 2007 : 2 : petitioner. The petitioner's appeal was also rejected. Ext.P9 is the punishment order and Ext.P11 is the order in appeal. The petitioner is challenging the same seeking the following reliefs: “i) to call for the records leadings upto Ext.P9 and P11 and quash the same by the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction. ii) to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from reducing the petitioner in rank from the post of Administrative Officer pursuant to Exts.P9 and P11 or otherwise.” 2. The primary contention of the petitioner is that there is no misconduct involved but only a mistake and therefore, the respondent ought not to have taken any disciplinary proceedings or even imposed a major penalty on the petitioner. The petitioner also contends that even assuming that it was a misconduct, the punishment of reduction in rank is disproportionate to the gravity of the alleged misconduct. 3. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit, wherein the contention taken is that the action of petitioner is not that innocent. It is not merely a mistake. The entire proceedings for sanctioning of loan was done by petitioner herself and that was not WPC.No.33543 of 2007 : 3 : with good intention at all. It is submitted that the charge sheet itself, the statement wherein is not disputed by the petitioner, would go to show that the petitioner was guilty of very serious misconducts. In fact, the petitioner herself admitted her actions narrated in the charge sheet by filing Ext.P3 and also admitted the same before the enquiry officer. A mere reading of the charge sheet itself would go to show that petitioner is guilty of very serious misconducts. Therefore, the punishment imposed on the petitioner is not at all disproportionate is the contention raised by the respondents. A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner reiterating the contentions in the writ petition. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated by issuing Ext.P4 charge sheet. Four charges are detailed therein, which are as follows: 1) THAT while working as Administrative Officer, Branch Office Ranni under Kottayam Division, you availed irregular loans on the policies on three occasions in contravention to the Manual Provisions, which were assigned to LIC. You availed policy loans twice on the policy No. 780321116, which was WPC.No.33543 of 2007 : 4 : assigned to LIC on 5.2.1992 for the housing loan availed from L&HPF dept., kottayam Divisional Office. On 23.7.2004, you raised a loan of Rs.12,000/- by submitting various documents and it is observed that you yourself put 'In-Order' seal and initialed the loan application form (form no.5200/4/5). Further, you yourself checked the loan voucher dated 23.7.2004. Subsequently, on 24.2.2005, you raised a loan of rs.52130/- by submitting various documents and it is also observed that you yourself put 'In-Order' seal and your initials on the loan application form ( form no.5200/4/5). Further, you yourself checked your loan voucher dated 24.2.2005. By availing these irregular loans in contravention to the Manual Provisions, you have indulged in temporary misappropriation of Corporation's funds. 2) THAT while working as Administrative Officer, Branch Office Ranni under Kottayam Division, you availed irregular loan on the policy no. 780305761, which was also assigned to LIC on 5.2.1992 for the housing loan availed from L&HPF dept., Kottayam. On 18.11.2004, you raised a loan of Rs.15,960/- by submitting various documents. It is observed that you yourself put In-Order seal and initialed the same on the loan application form (form no. 5200/4/5). Further, you yourself passed the loan voucher dated 18.11.2004 without anyone having checked it. By availing the irregular loan in contravention to the Manual Provisions, you have indulged in temporary misappropriation of Corporation's funds. 3) THAT while working as Administrative Officer, Branch Office Ranni under Kottayam Division, you submitted false Form no.3510 on the above mentioned three occasions, mentioned in charge no.(1) & (2). 4) THAT while working as Administrative Officer, Branch Office Ranni under Kottayam Division, you misused your official position to facilitate the process of availing the above mentioned irregular policy loans WPC.No.33543 of 2007 : 5 : which resulted in violation of the prescribed rules and procedures for granting policy loans on the above mentioned occasions. Thus, by your aforementioned actions as specifically mentioned in Charge Nos.(1) to (3) as above, you have cause temporary financial loss to the Corporation. To the said charge sheet, the petitioner filed Ext.P3 reply before the enquiry officer, which reads as follows: “Regarding the proceedings under Sec.39 of LIC of India (staff) regulation 1960 charge sheet dt. 9.6.2006. I categorically admit all the charges levelled against me in the charge sheet dt. 9.6.2006 issued by Executive Director personal on my own without any coercion or promise of leniency in punishment.” Ext.P2 is the proceedings before the enquiry officer on 10.10.2006 which reads thus: MINUTES OF PRELIMINARY HEARING. Time: 11.15 am, Date: 10.10.06 at Ranni Branch. EO: Have you received the letter appointing me as Enquiry Officer. CSO: yes. EO: Have you received the CS dt. 9.6.06 issued by E.O. CSO: yes. EO: Do you admit the charges given in the charge sheet. CSO: I admit the the charges in the charge sheet, and agree that a procedural lapse has taken place and I am ready to give my admission of charges in writing. WPC.No.33543 of 2007 : 6 : ( And further that her admission of charges was at her own without any coercion or promise for leniency in punishment.) The CSO loaded over a letter to the EO admitting the charges in writing. The enquiry concluded at 12.10 pm. 6. From Ext.P3, it is seen that the petitioner categorically admitted all the charges in Ext.P4. She reiterated the same before the enquiry officer as evidenced by Ext.P2 proceedings. A vain attempt was made by the counsel for the petitioner to satisfy me that Ext.P3 was issued under coercion from the respondents. But I find that such a contention was never taken by the petitioner at any time, except in the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner in this writ petition. In fact, the petitioner filed Ext.P6 representation against the enquiry report. There is nothing submitted therein that Ext.P3 was issued under coercion and the petitioner admitted the charges before the enqiry officer under coercion. The petitioner again filed Ext.P8 against the proposed punishment. Therein also there is no such contention. In Ext.P10 appeal before the appellate authority also there is no such contention. In the writ petition there is no such contention. In the reply affidavit filed in respect of the same, it is WPC.No.33543 of 2007 : 7 : stated as follows: “......Enquiry Officer was not ready to hear my part, all that he asked was whether I do admit the alleged offence or not. Enquiry Officer wanted an “Yes” or “No” answer. The petitioner tried to make herself clear, but she felt the enquiry as a mental torture. It is submitted that the words “I categorically admitted my mistake without any coercion or promise of leniency in punishment” was made written by the petitioner by the Enquiry Officer and not by the petitioner herself. The petitioner was always ready to admit the procedural mistake on her part, but that was not at all an intentional fraud. If to play an intentional fraud, the petitioner could have done everything in secrecy and could have even deleted all the details of loan from the system.” Even in that, the petitioner does not say that the petitioner was made to submit Ext.P3 under coercion or that she admitted the guilt before the enquiry officer under coercion. That is why I state that it is a vain attempt on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, I have no doubt that the petitioner had not disputed at any time that the petitioner had in fact committed the acts mentioned in the charge sheet. 7. Petitioner's further contention is that even assuming that the petitioner did what has been stated in Ext.P4 that would not amount to misconduct. At the most it would only be a mistake according to her. I am unable to agree. The acts stated in the charge WPC.No.33543 of 2007 : 8 : sheet are not an innocent act of an administrative Officer. As is clear from the statement in Ext.P4, the petitioner herself accepted the application for the loan, processed the same, approved it and sanctioned the loan. If the action of the petitioner was bonafide she would certainly have relegated the process of verification of her loan application to another officer or at least she would have got the same endorsed by another officer. As such I cannot accept the contention of the petitioner that the action of the petitioner was a bonafide mistake. Therefore, I hold that the petitioner was guilty of the misconducts charged in Ext.P4 charge sheet. 8. The next question to be considered is whether the punishment imposed on the petitioner is disappropriate to the gravity of the misconduct alleged in Ext.P4. I am of opinion that it was unbecoming of an Administrative Officer of LIC to have done what she has done as stated in Ext.P4. As I have earlier stated, the petitioner should not have dealt with her own loan application at all. The very fact that she had processed it and sanctioned it that too irregularly spells out a very serious misconduct. I am unable to hold WPC.No.33543 of 2007 : 9 : that for the said misconduct the punishment of reduction in rank is shockingly disproportionate so as to interfere with such punishment. In so far as the selection of punishment is the domain of the employer and this Court can interfere only if the punishment so imposed is shockingly disproportionate, I cannot interfere with the punishment also. Thus, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. Counsel for the petitioner submits that she was imposed with the punishment of transfer also in addition to reduction in rank. I do not think that transfer is a punishment. In such circumstances, I do not find any merit in that contention also. sd/- (S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE) kp //True copy//