Abhay Manohar Sapre JUDGMENT
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 04.07.2007 passed by the High Court at Calcutta in APO No. 591 of 2003 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Respondent No. 1 herein), set aside the order of the Single Judge and the award of the Tribunal and upheld the dismissal order passed by Respondent No. 1.
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 policyholders, due date of premium and the amount of premium are mentioned below:
5. After being prima facie satisfied on verification of the records that the Appellant had committed the alleged misconduct, the LIC placed the Appellant under suspension and then issued the charge-sheet Under Regulation 39 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Regulations") to the Appellant on 07.11.1977 (Annexure-A) setting out therein the specific charges with details mentioned above. The Appellant was asked to submit his reply.
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 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.
8. On 31.07.1981, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report (Annexure-D). The Enquiry Officer, in his detailed report running into 27 pages, held the charges leveled against the Appellant as proved. He recorded the following findings against the Appellant:
Thus I hold him guilty on the charges of his mala fide intention of perpetrating ........