IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 26.4.2010 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JEYAPAUL W.P.No.21109 of 2000 Mrs.Vasanthi Petitioner vs. 1. The Life Insurance Corporation of India, rep by the Chairman, L.I.C. Of India, Central Office, 'Yogakshema', Mumbai-21. 2. The Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Southern Zone, Chennai 600 002. 3. The Senior Divisional Manager, Vellore Division, L.I.C. Of India, Vellore. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records on the file of the third, second and first respondent in their proceedings No.NIL dated 30.12.1998 proceedings No.NIL dated 28.10.1999 and in proceedings No.NIL dated 25.9.2000 respectively and quash the same. For petitioner : Mr.R.Singaravelan for Mr.M.Vijayakumar For respondents: Mr.V.Parthiban ORDER The petitioner was initially selected for appointment to the post of Assistant and she joined service in Life Insurance Corporation of India, Vellore Division on 23.6.1986. On the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ basis of a statement given by one T.Loganathan, Higher Grade Assistant, the petitioner was given a charge memorandum to the effect that she deliberately tampered with the premium position and other records relating to 17 Life Insurance Corporation Policies issued by the Life Insurance Corporation which resulted in settlement of surrender value payments of the policies though those policies had not acquired surrender values and thereby the petitioner caused pecuniary loss to the Corporation. 2. Mr.N.Jayakumar, Manager (NB/Planning) Vellore Division was appointed as Enquiry Officer. He, having given opportunity to the petitioner, recorded the evidence given by both the petitioner as well as the Corporation and ultimately arrived at a decision that the charges framed as against the petitioner stood established. The third respondent, having given final show cause notice to the petitioner serving a copy of the report submitted by the said Enquiry Officer, received further representation from the petitioner and imposed penalty of recovery of loss of Rs.16,001.90 caused to the Corporation and reduction in basic pay to the lowest basic scale of Rs.1950/= under Regulation 39(1)(c) and (d) of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. 3. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the second respondent, who, having considered the order passed by the third respondent in the light of the grounds set up by the petitioner, was pleased to dismiss the appeal. 4. A revision was preferred before the first respondent, who also chose to dismiss the same. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that T.Loganathan, Higher Grade Assistant should have been charge sheeted for the lapse committed by him. The petitioner was charge sheeted for the corrections alleged to have been done in connection with policies of the year 1976-79 and 1980. A copy of the report submitted by the Forensic Science Department was not circulated to the petitioner. As the petitioner prepared the payment slip on the basis of the ledgers maintained and prepared by some other persons, the petitioner was charge sheeted and punished. The punishment awarded against her is totally disproportionate to the charges levelled against her. It is further contended by the petitioner that the impugned orders are tainted with mala fides and illegalities. 6. The respondent would contend that during the course of audit, it was noticed that settlement of surrender value in respect of 17 policies which lapsed long ago were made by tampering the premium position in the policy ledger sheet to make it appear that they were still in force and they acquired a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ surrender value. It is disputed that Mr.Loganathan was responsible for the irregularities unearthed by the Life Insurance Corporation in connection with the 17 lapsed policies. Allegations are levelled against the Enquiry Officer, Presenting Officer and management witnesses only for the purpose of shifting the blame. It is submitted that the petitioner was permitted to peruse the Forensic Expert's report on 30.9.1997 during the enquiry. The petitioner's handwriting in the relevant records which were found tampered has been established. It is submitted by the respondents that all the pleas set up in the writ petition are untenable and cannot be countenanced in law. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that a probationer, who was yet to pick up the working culture of Life Insurance Corporation of India, was charge sheeted leaving the main culprit Loganathan in the matter of alleged tampering of records. Principles of natural justice were not adhered to by the Enquiry Officer inasmuch as the Forensic Expert's Report was not circulated to the petitioner to enable her to effectively defend the charges levelled against her. The Enquiry Officer should not have given a finding as against the petitioner relying upon the evidence of T.Loganathan, who had a role in the fabrication of records, and the Forensic Expert's Report which was not circulated to the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer virtually donned the role of prosecution and put certain leading questions to the petitioner. Therefore, there was a bias in the conduct of the enquiry by the Enquiry Officer. Coming to the punishment awarded to the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that shockingly disproportionate punishment was awarded to the petitioner. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the impugned orders were passed by the respondents only after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. As there was no serious infraction of the procedures in the conduct of the enquiry, the impugned orders cannot be interfered with. It is his submission that very lenient view was taken by the respondents in the matter of giving punishment. 9. The petitioner was permitted to engage a counsel during the course of enquiry embarked upon by the Life Insurance Corporation of India. Full opportunity was given to the petitioner during the course of enquiry conducted by the officer appointed by Life Insurance Corporation of India. 10. The Enquiry Officer should have furnished a copy of the Forensic Expert's Report to the petitioner during the course of enquiry But, on facts, it is found that the petitioner was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ permitted to peruse the Forensic Expert's Report which was relied upon by the Enquiry Officer. Firstly, nothing has been alleged that a prejudice was caused to the petitioner on account of non-furnishing of copy of the Forensic Expert's Report. Secondly, it is not as if the petitioner was kept in dark with respect to the Forensic Expert's Report received by the Life Insurance Corporation of India. The petitioner was given an opportunity to go through the Forensic Expert's Report marked in the case. 11. It is submitted that Forensic Expert was not examined for the purpose of establishing the report submitted by him. Firstly, it is not a criminal trial where the author of the document should be subjected to cross-examination. The Enquiry Officer thought it fit to allow the petitioner to examine the Forensic Expert's Report to fortify her defence. Therefore, the non-examination of the Expert by the Life Insurance Corporation of India would not go to the root of the disciplinary proceedings. In such circumstances, it cannot be held that the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer appointed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India is vitiated. 12. Mr.T.Loganathan was serving as Higher Grade Assistant supervising the work of the petitioner. The Life Insurance Corporation of India has come out with materials to show that it was only the petitioner, who tampered with the records. T.Loganathan, Higher Grade Assistant has just initialled the entries made by the petitioner after verifying the calculation and that he had no occasion to check the premium position doctored by the petitioner. Therefore, the Life Insurance Corporation of India thought it fit not to proceed as against T.Loganathan. 13. T.Loganathan is a competent witness to speak to the handwriting found in the ledger and other recorded maintained by the petitioner. T.Loganathan has spoken to the fact that he was well conversant with the handwriting of the petitioner, as he was the supervisor of the work done by the petitioner. He has categorically stated before the Enquiry Officer that the alleged tampering of records had been done only by the petitioner inasmuch as the tampering was in the handwriting of the petitioner. The evidence of T.Loganathan, a competent witness to speak about the handwriting of the petitioner was buttressed by the Forensic Report. The Enquiry Officer has come to a conclusion that the handwriting of the petitioner found in S.13 marked by the Forensic Expert was not denied by the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 14. It is not required to send the ledger for the scrutiny of the Forensic Expert. The portions which are tampered with and the portions where there had been alterations had been sent for the Expert's opinion. 15. It is not a case where the petitioner could establish that there was no evidence available to arrive at a conclusion that she committed the irregularities as charged. 16. The disciplinary proceedings cannot be equated with the criminal proceedings in the matter of proof required for establishment of the guilt. It is enough if the Department establishes that the Officer charged was guilty of a conduct which warrants disciplinary action as against him. As far as the criminal proceedings are concerned, the standard of proof is totally different. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is to be strictly established in a criminal proceeding. But, an employee can be found guilty of the charges levelled against him if preponderance of probabilities indicate his involvement. 17. The Supreme Court in M.V.BIJLANI v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ((2006) 5 SCC 88) has held as follows:- "It is true that the jurisdiction of the court in judicial review is limited. Disciplinary proceedings, however, being quasi-criminal in nature, there should be some evidence to prove the charge. Although the charges in a departmental proceedings are not required to be proved like a criminal trial i.e., beyond all reasonable doubt, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the enquiry officer performs a quasi- judicial function, who upon analysing the documents must arrive at a conclusion that there had been a preponderance of probability to prove the charges on the basis of materials on record. While doing so, he cannot take into consideration any irrelevant fact. He cannot refuse to consider the relevant facts. He cannot shift the burden of proof. He cannot reject the relevant testimony of the witnesses only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. He cannot enquire into the allegations with which the delinquent officer had not been charged with." 18. Similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in ROOP SINGH NEGI v. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK ((2009) 3 MLJ 934 (SC)). It has been held therein that in a departmental proceedings which is quasi-judicial in nature, the charges levelled against the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ delinquent must be proved. The Enquiry Officer has a duty to arrive at a finding based on the materials brought on record. The finding of the Enquiry Officer must be based on evidence and it shall also be supported by reasons. It has been further held therein that suspicion cannot substitute the place of proof. The decision must be established by the Enquiry Officer based on some evidence which is legally admissible. 19. In the instant case, a full-fledged enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer appointed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India. The evidence of T.Loganathan and the Expert's opinion marked would go to show that it was only the petitioner who tampered with the records and committed irregularities and thereby caused loss to the Corporation. The Enquiry Officer's finding is based on evidence legally admissible. The Enquiry Officer had never strayed out of the materials brought on record by the parties. 20. The jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with respect to the departmental action initiated against an employee has been succinctly set out in LOLIT POPLI v. CANARA BANK (2003 SCC (L&S) 353) as under. "While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an appellate authority. Its jurisdiction is circumscribed by limits of judicial review to correct errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. Judicial review is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority." 21. Nothing has been demonstrated in the instant case by the petitioner that there was procedural infraction committed by the respondents which led to manifest injustice. Nothing also has been shown that there is violation of principles of natural justice in the conduct of the enquiry by the Enquiry Officer. This court cannot act as an appellate authority to substitute its own reasons to upset the decision of the respondents. 22. As there is sufficient materials to establish the guilt of the petitioner in the departmental enquiry conducted by the Life Insurance Corporation of India, the question of interfering with the decision taken by the respondents does not arise for consideration. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 23. Coming to the quantum of punishment awarded to the petitioner, it is found that recovery of loss to the Corporation and reduction in basic pay to the lowest timescale of pay viz., Rs.1950/= was ordered by the disciplinary authority and the same was confirmed by the appellate authority. 24. It is not a case where the punishment awarded to the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate to the charges established as against her. Within one year from the date of joining service, it appears that the petitioner has committed irregularities alleged against her. Financial loss has occasioned to the Corporation. The petitioner, who was completely trusted by the employer, has breached the trust. In fact, the Corporation has taken a lenient view in the matter of punishment of an employee who had committed serious lapses which resulted in financial loss to the Corporation. Therefore, the question of interfering with the punishment awarded by the respondents also does not arise for consideration. 25. In view of the above, the writ petition fails and it stands dismissed. No cost. ssk. Sd/- Asst. Registrar //True Copy// Sub Asst. Registrar To 1. The Chairman, The Life Insurance Corporation of India, Central Office, 'Yogakshema', Mumbai-21. 2. The Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Southern Zone, Chennai 600 002. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The Senior Divisional Manager, Vellore Division, L.I.C. Of India, Vellore. + 1 cc to Mr. R.S. Singgaravelan, Advocate SR No.28039 + 1 cc to Mr. V. Parthiban, Advocate SR No.27642 VSN(CO) SR/5.5.2010 ORDER IN W.P.No.21109 of 2000 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/