MIHIR KUMAR HAZARA CHOUDHURY v. LIFE INSURANCE CORPN & Anr.

Judgment

9 S.C.R. 418 A MIHIR KUMAR HAZARA CHOUDHURY v. LIFE INSURANCE CORPN. & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 7612 of2009) B SEPTEMBER 11, 2017 [R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] C Service Law - Dismissal.from service -Assistant of LIC issued receipts to policy holders without actually receiving payme/1fs from them - Department proceedings - Employee held guilty of misconduct and dismissed from service - Tribunal set aside the dismissal order. howeve1; High Court set aside the order of the tribunal - On appeal. held: No irregularity in the departmental proceedings - LIC department independently proved charges before Enquiry Officer and tribunal '- Appellant admitted the charges and D only made a prayer for leniency - Furthe1; no defense available to employee to say that there was no loss or profit resulting in a case when employee acted· without authority - Having regard to the seriousness of the charges and no defense being taken by Assistant, punishment of dismissal was appropriate - Life Insurance E Corporation of India (Stajj) Regulations, 1960 - Reg. 39. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the Division Bench that the charges leveled against the appellant stood proved and, in consequence, upheld the appellant's F dismissal order holding it to be commensurate with the gravity of the charges, arc accepted. Also, the respondent (LIC) was able to prove the charges leveled against the appellant (employee). The charges can be held proved by mere reading of the appellant's reply wherein he, in no uncertain terms, admitted that he had issued the disputed premium/special premium receipts to the concerned policyholders and did not receive the amount from any of them. All he had said was that such mistake occurred on his part due to heavy pressure of workload on him and some family circumstances/worries which, was hardly any G H 418 MIHIR KUMAR HAZARA CHOUDHURY v. LIFE INSURANCE 419· CORPN. & ANR. defense to the charges; and that he himself requested for taking A action against him with leniency. [Paras 21, 22)(425-G-H; 426-A- B)

1.2 The Enquiry Officer had recorded a finding of fact that the action on the part of'the appellant was willful and with ma/a fide intention to perpetrate the fraud on the respondent (LIC) B for wrongful personal gains. Though, this report was set aside by the tribunal but the Division Bench set aside the award of the tribunal and upheld the dismissal order. It is for this reason, the report of the Enquiry Officer can now be looked into. Though, sin~ere attempt was made to attack to challenge the departmental proceedings but there is no merit in the same. [Paras 23, 24](426- C B-D]

1.3 The principle of natural justice was fully observed in departmental proceedings wherein the appellant throughout participated. No prejudice was noticed having been caused to the appellant while participating in the Enquiry proceedings. That D apart, despite the appellant virtually admitting the charges, the respondent had also adduced the evidence before the Enquiry officer and then before the tribunal to prove the charges independently, which rightly found acceptance by the Division Bench. [Para 25][426-D-E) E

1.4 Keeping in view the reasons set out coupled with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, which Division Bench has rightly upheld, there is no hesitation in holding that'the charges against the appellant were proved not only on the strength of the admission of the appellant in his reply but also independently F with the aid of the evidence led by the LIC before the Enquiry Officer and later befor~ the tribunal. [Para 26)(426-F-G)

1.5 An employee, in discharge of his duties, is required to. exercise higher standard of honesty and integrity. In a case where he deals with the money of the depositors and customers, it is all G the more necessary for him to be more cautious in his duties because he deals with the money transactions for and on behalf of his employer. Every such employee/officer is, therefore, required to take all_ pos~ible steps to profect the interest of his employer. He must, therefore, discharge his duties with utmost H 420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 9 S.C.R. A sense of integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and must ensure that he does nothing, which is unbecoming of an employee/ officer. Indeed, good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every employee/officer of any Institution and more when the institution deals with money of the customers. Any dereliction .in _discharge of duties whether by way of negligence or with deliberate intention or with casualness constitutes misconduct on the part of such employee/officer. [Para 27)(426- G-H; 427-A-B] 8 c

1.6 There is no defense available to a delinquent to say that there was no loss or profit resulting in a case when officer/ employee is found to have acted without authority. The very discipline of an organization and especially financial institution where money is deposikd of several depositors for their benefit is dependent upon each of its employee, who acts/operates within the allotted sphere as custodian of such deposit. Acting beyond D one's authority by itself is a breach of discipline and thus, constitutes a misconduct rendering the delinquent to suffer the adverse orders. [Para 28)(427-C-D)

1.7 Having regard to the seriousness of the charges coupled with virtually no defense taken by the appellant in answer to the E charges and 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. [Para 29][427-E)

1.8 The appellant neither set up any defense nor denied the factum of charges, yet the respondent proved the charges with the aid of relevant evidence, which found acceptance to the Division Bench and this Court too. As an Appellate Court, neither this Court can sit over the findings of the Enquiry Officer and find fault in it nor can re-appreciate the evidence of witnesses examined in departmental Enquiry. [Para 31][427-G-H; 428-A]