Mihir Kumar Hazara Choudhury vs Life Insurance Corpn. And Anr.

2) In order to appreciate the issues involved in the appeal, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts hereinbelow.

3) In the year 1960, the appellant was appointed as an Assistant in the set up of respondent No.1- Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as “LIC”). At the relevant time, he was posted in the Branch Office of LIC at a place called Burir Bagan, PO & District Burdwan (WB).

4) During the year 1977, it came to the notice of the officials of respondent No.1 (LIC) that the appellant, in discharge of his duties, issued as many as seven receipts including special premium receipts to the policyholders without receiving any premium amount from them. The details of the policies such as their numbers, names of 2 policyholders, due date of premium and the amount of premium are mentioned below:

6) On 28.11.1977, the appellant replied to the charges (Annexure-B). The appellant, in substance, admitted the issuance of receipts by him and also admitted non-receipt of the amount against any of these receipts from any of the policyholders. All he said was that he had neither any mala fide intention nor any oblique motive behind this. According to the appellant, it occurred due to the pressure of work 4 and family circumstances/worries. The appellant, therefore, prayed respondent No.1 to take lenient view in the case against him.

7) Dissatisfied with the reply of the appellant, respondent No.1 referred the matter to the Enquiry Officer for holding regular Departmental Enquiry into the charges leveled against the appellant as per the service regulations. The Departmental Enquiry was, accordingly, held in which the appellant fully participated. The respondent (LIC) adduced evidence to prove the charges.

10) The appellant (employee), felt aggrieved of the dismissal order, preferred departmental appeal to Zonal Manager. It was dismissed by order dated 22.04.1982. The appellant then sought industrial reference to the Central Government Industrial 6 Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to decide the legality and correctness of the dismissal order. It was referred to the Tribunal as Reference No. 5/1989.

13) The respondent, felt aggrieved, filed writ petition (W.P. No.2578/1998) before the High Court at Calcutta. The learned Single Judge stayed the operation of the award of the Industrial Tribunal on condition that the respondent(LIC) would pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- by way of ex-gratia payment to the appellant and then disposed of the writ petition by order dated 31.03.1999 giving liberty to the parties to apply before the Tribunal.

12) In other words, in the opinion of the Tribunal, the respondent(LIC) failed to prove the charges against the appellant for want of adequate evidence and, therefore, the dismissal order was liable to be set aside. It was, accordingly, set aside with a further direction to the respondent(LIC) to pay the entire retiral benefits to the appellant because, in the meantime, the appellant had attained the age of superannuation.

15) By impugned order, the Division Bench allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.1 (LIC), set aside the order of the Single Judge and the award of the Tribunal and upheld the dismissal order passed by the respondent.

20) As mentioned above, the Division Bench held that the charges leveled against the appellant stood proved and, in consequence, upheld the appellant's dismissal order holding it to be commensurate with the gravity of the charges.

29) In our opinion, having regard to the seriousness of the charges coupled with virtually no defense taken by the appellant in answer to the charges and lastly, the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the punishment of dismissal was appropriate as provided in the service regulations and hence does not call for any leniency in awarding such punishment.

32) In the light of foregoing discussion, we find no merit in the appeal. The appeal thus fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.

33) It was, however, brought to our notice that the learned Single Judge during pendency of the writ petition by an interim order had directed the respondent (LIC) to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- by way of ex-gratia payment to the appellant. The respondent accordingly paid this amount to the appellant. Let this amount be remained with the appellant.

……..................................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] New Delhi;

September 11, 2017 18