1. The matter is taken up through video conferencing. This writ appeal has been filed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred
to as “LICâ€) challenging the order of the learned Single Judge (Kohima Bench) dated 20.11.2020 passed in WP(C) No.266 (K)/2017 whereby the
writ petition filed by the respondent herein was allowed and the order of his removal from service and the subsequent orders passed in Appeal,
upholding his removal were set aside.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the present respondent was working as a Higher Grade Assistant in the LICI Branch of Dimapur in Nagaland
at the relevant time, i.e. in the year 2010. It is an admitted fact that while the respondent was working as a Higher Grade Assistant in Dimapur
Branch of LIC, he was also discharging the duties of “cashierâ€. In the year 2012, an audit was done for the Dimapur Branch of LIC wherein
certain anomalies were detected regarding disbursement of money which was payable to the policy holder on maturity of these policies. The
preliminary enquiry revealed that the private respondent had a hand in these matters. The respondent was suspended and disciplinary proceeding was
held against him. On 07.11.2015, a copy of the charge-sheet was given to the respondent which contained eight charges. These charges, which are
very serious in nature, read as under:
“(1) THAT on 30/06/2010, you prepared and checked a voucher having transaction No.3564 for fresh cheque against stale cheque
no.550731 dated 28/12/2006 of policy No.440757109 having amount Rs.30,000.00. the fresh cheque No.107386 dated 30/06/2010 was
prepared in favour of LICI wherein you put your signature as authorized signatory. The cheque was deposited against renewal premium of
policy No.441711763, 443499396, 442005198, 440544510, 441265558, 441706366 and 441048839 on 10/07/2010.
(2) THAT, on 10/07/2010, you prepared and checked a voucher having transaction No.4192 for fresh cheque against stale cheque
No.555913 dated 27/04/2007 of policy No.441713965 having amount of Rs.15,000.00. The fresh cheque No.107841 dated 10/07/2010 was
prepared in favour of LICI wherein you put your signature as authorized signatory. The cheque was deposited against renewal premium of
the policy No.571550697, 584619560, 443490257 and 440623136 on dated 19/07/2010.
(3) THAT, you validated and signed a fresh cheque no.325418 for Rs.25,000/- in favour of LICI against a stale cheque 325347 of
Rs.73928/- whereas the balance amount was refunded to party. The cheque No.325418 of Rs.25000/-was utilized for loan repayment of
policy No.441446888 on the life of one Shib Narayan Choudhury.
(4) THAT, on 30/08/2010, you prepared, checked and validated a voucher having transaction No.5930 for fresh cheque against stale
cheque No.174279 dated 30/03/2005 of policy No.440140428 having amount of Rs.10,000.00. The fresh cheque No.109173 dated
30/08/2010 was prepared in favour of LICI wherein you put your signature as authorized signatory. The cheque was deposited against
BOC No.3920 dated 13/09/2010, transaction No.30801 in favour of Yangerba chiten jamir and converted into policy No.443506321.
(5) THAT, on 13/09/2010, you prepared, checked and validated a voucher having transaction No.6542 for fresh cheque against stale
cheque No.176337 dated 14/06/2005 of policy No.440543773 having amount of Rs.75,000.00. The fresh cheque No.116555 dated
13/09/2010 was prepared in favour of LICI wherein you put your signature as authorized signatory and the cheque was deposited against
new proposals having policy No.443506709, 443506711, 443506713 & 443506714 and against renewal premium of policy No.443497033
and against BOC No.4438.
(6) THAT, on 11/06/2010, you prepared, checked and validated a voucher for fresh payment against a stale cheque No.313387 dated
28/12/2008 of Rs.7500/- and fresh cheque No.107007 was utilized for renewal premium of policy Nos.443494594, 443500192, 442014454
and 440542898.
(7) THAT, on 29/01/2010, you prepared, checked and validated a voucher for fresh payment against stale cheque No.311272 dated
28/10/2008 of Rs.10000/-. Voucher was prepared in the name of Nirmal Dey but cheque was prepared in the name of Chupathung and
debited to A/C No.2 by Vijaya Bank on 29.01.2010.
(8) THAT, on 29/01/2010, you prepared, checked and validated a voucher for fresh payment against stale cheque No.69009 dated
30/08/2008 of Rs.15000/-. Voucher was prepared in the name of Chujangmeren Pon but cheque was prepared in the name of Jolly and
cheque was debited to Bank A/C No.2 on 29.01.2010 by Vijaya Bank.â€
3. Before we further proceed with the case, let us examine the alleged misconduct or the modus operandi of the respondent as alleged by the
department, i.e. LIC, as it is a slightly complicated modus operandi. The case of the LIC is that the respondent who was working as a Higher Grade
Assistant in the Dimapur Branch of LIC was admittedly also discharging the duties of Cashier at the relevant time. Therefore, in that capacity he had
access to all the relevant documents. What actually he did was that whenever a policy matured, he failed to draw a cheque of that amount in favour
of the policy holder, but instead a cheque was drawn in the name of LIC of the same amount and was kept in the files. This pertains to a period
between 2005 to 2008, i.e. the period when different policies got matured. In the year 2010, when none of the policy holders turned up, the same
amount, for example an amount of Rs.30,000/- (in the first charge) was renewed not in favour of the actual policy holder, but this amount was utilised
for payment of premium for different policies given by the LIC in favour of five different policy holders. What the LIC actually alleges is that by
adopting this mechanism, the respondent had unauthorisedly and with an ill motive kept with himself the actual amount which was to be given to the
policy holder and instead got the premium paid from that old cheque of Rs.30,000/-, after getting it renewed. This was the modus operandi in at least
six charges numbering Charge Nos. 1 to
6. Charge Nos. 7 and 8 were slightly different where the amount was deposited, for example in Charge Nos. 7 and 8 part of the amount to be given in
favour of the policy holder was actually deposited in the account of the wife of the respondent and once also in the name of the brother of the
respondent. The fact that all this happened is not in doubt. It is an admitted position that once these policies with which we are concerned got matured,
the amount was not given to the policy holder. We have also been informed at the Bar that the practice with the LIC is that once a policy gets
matured normally with some incentives the LIC tries to sell another policy to the holder or tries to renew the policy and that amount, which has to be
given in his favour, is thus utilised for this purpose, but if he does not agree with the proposal of LIC then the amount is given in his favour. But in all
such cases the amount did not go in favour of the actual policy holder but was used for renewal of policies of different policy holders. LIC would
allege that thereby the respondents kept for himself the actual amount given by these policy holders for renewal of their policies or for payment of
premiums. The respondent admits to the fact that he had prepared a cheque and kept it in the file, but he does not admit the second step that there
was his hand in again using that amount for renewal of five different policies from the said amount. However, during the departmental proceedings
when these documents were shown to the respondent, he admitted his signature as well as his signature in the cheques. It is only later on in course of
the departmental proceeding that he insisted upon production of the original documents or original cheques. The admitted position is that the
respondents in any case has not been able to answer the most obvious question, which is why was the amount after maturity not handed over to the
policy holder and why no attempts were made to inform this policy holder.
4. Meanwhile with the handing over of the above Charge Sheet, the departmental proceeding began against the private respondent. The Enquiry
Officer heard the presenting officer as well as the charge-sheeted employee, i.e. the respondent herein and after hearing the presenting officer as well
as the charge-sheeted employee and having given opportunity to the charge-sheeted employee to cross-examine the witnesses, etc. the findings
recorded by the enquiry officer on each charge are as follows:
“Charge-wise findings:
In consideration of the documentary and oral evidences adduced by the Presenting Officer and the written declaration of the charge
sheeted Employees and arguments put forth by the PO in his written brief, I give below my findings in respect of each charge separately.
Charge-1
PO submitted P1 to prove the charge and the CSE submitted D1 in his support. The CSE admitted that as approved by the BM i/c he
prepared & checked the voucher favouring LICI and put his signature as authorized signatory.
My findings- From the documents submitted and arguments put forth by the PO, it is proved that the CSE Mr. P.N. Jami wilfully prepared,
checked and signed the cheque issued in favour of LIC. But there was no proper control over the cheque. As a result of sheer negligence on
the part of the CSE, the violation of the established procedures took place.
I, therefore, hold this charge levelled against the CSE as fully established.
Charge-2- PO submitted P2 and CSE submitted D8. The CSE admitted that he prepared and checked the voucher. But the document
submitted by CSE lacks authenticity since the consent letter bears no date and approval by the competent authority. In this case also, there
was no control over the Deptt and due to negligence on the part of the CSE, the cheque amount was adjusted against different policies in
violation of the laid down procedures.
My findings: in violation of the laid down procedures, the cheque was prepared in favour of LICI but utilized against renewal premium of
different policy holders.
I, therefore, hold this charge levelled against the CSE as fully established.
Charge-3: PO submits P3 and P3(A) to prove the charge. The CSE admitted that only after the voucher was duly approved by the competent
authority, he validated and signed the cheque. The CSE submitted D9. However, the authenticity of the same is doubtful as no mention has
been made with regard to the amount and also it bears no date and address of the declarant. Moreover, the stale cheque in question was a
death claim cheque which cannot be ploughed back at the first instance as per laid down rules of the Corporation.
My findings- it is proved that the CSE has failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to his duty resulting in violation of established
rules.
I, therefore, hold this charge levelled against the CSE as fully established.
Charge 4: PO submits P4 and CSE produced D3 which was duly approved by the BM. The CSE further admitted that he prepared, checked
and validated the voucher and also signed the cheque as authorized signatory due to office exigency and interest of the Corporation.
My findings- The CSE failed to keep any control over the cheque issued in favour of LICI as a result of which the cheque was wrongly
utilized. This amply proves the lack of sincerity and devotion on his part and also lack integrity.
I, therefore, hold this charge levelled against the CSE as fully established.
Charge-5: PO submits P5. The CSE admitted that he prepared and checked the voucher on receipt of consent letter duly approved by the
BM. He submits D 10 and D4.
My findings: The CSE instead of ensuring proper utilization of cheque in favour of the LA, he showed his indifferent attitude and
negligence of duty.
I, therefore, hold this charge levelled against the CSE as fully established.
Charge-6: PO submits P6 whereas CSE submits D5. The CSE admitted that he prepared, checked and validated the voucher only after it
was duly approved by the BM with a clear-cut instruction to utilize the same in favour of the LA only. In spite of that, the CSE failed to
exercise proper control over the cheque issued in favour of LICI which proves negligence of duty on his part.
My findings: Negligence of duty on the part of CSE is proved, I, therefore, hold the charge levelled is fully established.
Charge-7: PO submits P7, P13, P16 & P17. CSE submits D7. As per our panel advocate (document P 13), the document D7 submitted by
CSE is not genuine. When asked whether he prepared, checked and validated the voucher in the name of Nirmal Dey but the cheque was
credited into the account of Chupathang, the CSE refused to comment on the matter until and unless the original vouchers are produced
before him for verification.
My findings: Preparation of cheque in the name of another person in place of the payee’s name clearly proves the mala fide intention
of the CSE.
I, therefore, hold that the charge levelled is fully proved.
Charge-8: PO submits P7, P12, P13, P18 & P19 and CSE submits D6. P18 and P19 reveals that the voucher was prepared in the name of
Chujangmeren Pon whereas the cheque was credited into the account of Ms. Jolly. As per out panel advocate’s report P13, D6 is not
genuine. The CSE refused to comment whether he prepared, checked the voucher until and unless the original documents are produced
before him.
My findings: I, therefore, hold that the charge levelled against the CSE is fully established.
Taking into consideration all the documentary/oral evidences and the written arguments submitted by the PO and written declaration of the
CSE during enquiry proceedings, I come into conclusion that all the charges mentioned in the charge sheet dt 07.11.2015 are fully
established.â€
5. The Appointing authority accepted the enquiry report and imposed punishment of removal from service and the respondent was removed from
service vide order dated 12.01.2017. The respondent preferred a departmental appeal against the order of removal from service on 10.02.2017 which
was also dismissed by the appellate authority on 28.03.2017. After dismissal of the appeal, the respondent preferred a Memorial before the Chairman
on 11.5.2017 which was also rejected on 16.08.2017. Thereafter, the respondent filed a writ petition being WP(C) No.266(K)/2017 before the Kohima
Bench of Gauhati High Court which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 20.11.2020. The learned Single in his order has come to
the conclusion that financial anomalies were indeed committed in the Dimapur Branch of LIC. However, the learned Single Judge has also come to
the conclusion that though some blame can be put on the respondent, he was not alone in committing of these anomalies. There were other employees
involved in the anomalies as well and therefore, singling out the respondent was not correct. We say this as the learned Single Judge, while evaluating
the findings of the enquiry officer regarding Charge No. 1, states as under:
“19. ................. Further, it also indicates that the application was processed through various departments and at different
levels of the branch and only thereafter the request of the nominee was allowed. Therefore, the finding arrived at by the Enquiry Officer
that the petitioner alone is responsible for the same appears to be not as per the evidence available. It may be true that the petitioner had
signed the cheque but it was done only after proper scrutiny was done at different levels including the Branch Manager to whom the
request was first made. Furthermore, there is no finding as to how the cheque amount was deposited for renewal premium of five policies.
Therefore, this Court is of the view that if any loss has been caused to the LICI, the petitioner alone cannot be held responsible. He is only
one in the long chain of administration in the branch office.â€
The writ petition was hence allowed and the order of removal from service was set aside and quashed. There is no challenge to these findings by the
private respondents.
6. Being aggrieved, the LIC filed the present appeal before this Court.
7. We have heard Mr. S Dutta, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Mr. M Sarania, learned counsel for the respondent at considerable
length.
8. The argument raised by the learned senior counsel for the appellants is that it was not correct on the part of the learned Single Judge to have
absolved the respondent of all responsibilities merely because some other officers may or may not have been involved in the crime. The other point
raised by the learned senior counsel for the appellants is that the learned Single Judge in any case had proceeded in the matter and had found fault
with the departmental proceeding as if in a departmental proceeding the prosecution has to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. In a
departmental proceeding, the learned senior counsel Sri S. Dutta would argue, the case has to be proved on the basis of preponderance of probabilities
and not on the yardstick of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. The respondent was not being prosecuted in a criminal court. What the respondent was
facing was a departmental proceeding where the manner of examination and appreciation of evidence are different as compared to what it is in a
criminal court of justice.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent Mr. M. Sarania agrees with the legal provision but would argue that since the respondent was facing a major
punishment of removal or even dismissal from service, the departmental proceedings should not have been casual, rather stringent procedure should
have been adopted before recording a finding of guilt against the respondent. He has, therefore, pointed out irregularities in the departmental
proceedings such as the cheques and other documents presented before the enquiry officer by the presenting officer were only photocopies and the
original documents were not produced. Since the original documents were not produced, the photocopies in itself cannot be appreciated as an evidence
and, in any case, even if the originals were not available the certified copies of the same could have been produced in accordance with Bankers’
Book Evidence Act, 1891.
10. Mr. S. Dutta, learned senior counsel for the appellants has apprised before this Court that it was not possible for the LIC to produce the original
cheques as these cheques get destroyed after a particular period of time and, in any case, since the veracity of the cheques were admitted by the
respondent where he also admitted his signatures in the cheques, there was absolutely no purpose of producing the original cheques, though
photocopies of the same were produced. In any case, once there is admission on the part of the respondent regarding the veracity of these cheques,
nothing further proof is required as a fact which is admitted need not be proved (Section 58 of the Evidence Act).
Therefore, there was also no purpose of producing certified copy of the documents as being insisted now by the learned counsel for the respondent
Mr. Sarania even under the Bankers’ Book Evidence Act, 1891, the senior Advocate for LIC Mr. S Dutta would argue. It is indeed this that
procedural fairness demands.
11. We have gone through the records of the disciplinary proceeding as well as the order of removal issued by the appointing authority and the order
of the learned Single Judge dated 20.11.2020.
12. The departmental proceedings went in accordance with law, following the due process and all norms and procedures including the principles of
natural justice were adopted by the enquiry officer. It is not the case of the respondent that he was not heard by the enquiry officer or any other
authority. His only case is that the original documents were not produced. As we have already referred in the preceding paragraph of this judgement,
in the facts and circumstances of the case where there is clear admission on the part of the respondent as to these documents hence, it was not
necessary for the prosecution to have produced the original documents. In any case no prejudice has been caused by this to the respondent.
Moreover, it is a departmental proceedings and in a departmental proceedings the charges have to be proved on the basis of preponderance of
probabilities, and not “beyond reasonable doubtâ€, as in a Criminal Court (Suresh Pathrella vs. Oriental Bank of  Commerce( 2006) 10 SCC 572).
On this basis, all the charges against the respondent stood proved.
The only reason that the learned Single Judge has interfered and granted relief to the respondent is that he is not alone while doing this wrong, but
there are other persons involved in it and, therefore, he should not be singled out. This reasoning of the learned Single Judge, we are afraid, we are not
in agreement with. We have been informed at the Bar that the matter proceeded not only against the respondent, but against the other two officers as
well. However, the enquiry officer ultimately found that they were not involved in this wrong and their fault was that they were only negligent. For
their negligence, they have been given milder punishment which is stoppage of two increments.
13. Under these circumstances, we allow the present appeal and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 20.11.2020 passed in WP(C)
No.266 (K)/2017.
