Page 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3655  OF 2010

Diwan Singh ... Appellant

Versus

Life Insurance Corporation of India and others         …  Respondents

J U D G M E N T

PRAFULLA C.  PANT, J.

This  appeal  is  directed  against  judgment  and  order  

dated 27.8.2009, passed by the High Court of Judicature at  

Allahabad, in Special Appeal No. 1167 of 1999, whereby said  

Court  has  partly  allowed  the  appeal,  and  substituted  the

Page 2

2

punishment  of  removal  awarded  to  the  appellant,  by  

compulsory retirement from service.

2. We  have  heard  learned  counsel  for  the  parties  and  

perused the papers on record.

3. Briefly stated,  the facts are that the appellant was a  

cashier with Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter  

referred to as “LIC”) and posted at Bilaspur, District Rampur  

in U.P.  A policy holder, Bhograj Singh, deposited with the  

appellant  an  amount  of  Rs.533/-  towards  half  yearly  

insurance  premium  on  13.8.1990  but  the  same  was  not  

deposited with LIC nor credited in the account of the policy  

holder  till  27.11.1990,   though  a  receipt  was  issued  on  

13.8.1990 by the appellant.  It appears that when the LIC  

agent  did  not  get  his  commission  out  of  the  premium  

deposited,  and  made  enquiries  in  this  regard,  aforesaid  

amount of Rs.533/-  was shown deposited by the appellant  

with late fee of Rs.15.90/-, and entry was made in the cash  

register  on 28.11.1990.  Also,  a  forged entry was made in  

ledger sheet on back date.   In connection with the above  

misconduct on the part of the appellant, a charge-sheet was

Page 3

3

served  on  him  on  29.4.1991  on  two  counts,  namely,  

temporary  embezzlement  of  Rs.533/-  for  the  period  

13.8.1990 to 27.11.1990, and forging entry of Rs.533/- in the  

carbon copy of the ledger sheet dated 13.8.1990 between  

entry Nos. 12 and 13.  On conclusion of the departmental  

enquiry,  the  appellant  was  found  guilty,  and  served  with  

copy  of  enquiry  report,  whereafter  he  was  removed  from  

service  vide  order  dated  21.1.1992.   The  departmental  

appeal  appears  to  have  been  dismissed  by  the  authority  

concerned on 22.2.1992.   

4. Challenging the order of removal from service and that  

of  the  appellate  authority,  the  appellant  filed  Civil  

Miscellaneous  Writ  Petition  No.  10308  of  1999 before  the  

High Court which was allowed by the learned Single Judge on  

6.9.1999.   Aggrieved  by  said  order  of  the  learned  Single  

Judge, Special Appeal was filed before Division Bench of the  

High  Court,  by  the  employer  (i.e.  –  L.I.C.).   The  Division  

Bench, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that  

the  appellant  appears  to  have  committed  the  forgery  to  

cover  his  mistake,  and  partly  allowed  the  appeal  by

Page 4

4

substituting punishment of compulsory retirement in place of  

removal  from  service.   The  appellant-employee  has  

challenged the order of the Division Bench of the High Court  

by way of Special Leave Petition mainly on the ground that  

the  punishment  of  compulsory  retirement  is  

disproportionate,  unreasonable  and  harsh.  Leave  was  

granted by this Court on 19.4.2010.

5. Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant,  

drew our attention to Rule 23 of Life Insurance Corporation  

of  India (Employees)  Pension Rules,  1995,  which reads as  

under:-

“23.  Forfeiture  of  service.  –  Resignation  or  dismissal or removal or termination or compulsory  retirement of an employee from the service of the  Corporation shall entail forfeiture of his entire past  service  and  consequently  shall  not  qualify  for  pensionary benefits.”

It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that it is a  

case of temporary embezzlement of a small amount, as such  

awarding minor punishment of stoppage of increment etc.  

would have met  the ends of  justice.   It  is  also submitted  

before  us  that  the  amount  could  not  be  credited  by  the

Page 5

5

appellant  on  13.8.1990  as  the  cash  actually  paid  by  the  

policy holder on that day was short, as such the act on the  

part of the appellant was bonafide.   

6. We have given thoughtful consideration to the above  

argument  advanced  on  behalf  of  the  appellant.   The  

explanation put forth does not appear to be convincing, as  

the cashier would not have issued a receipt without counting  

the cash at the counter.  Secondly, had the act on the part of  

the appellant been bonafide, he would not have made forged  

entry  of  Rs.533/-  in  the  carbon  copy  of  ledger  sheet  on  

13.8.1990  between  entry  Nos.  12  and  13.   As  such,  the  

finding of the enquiry officer holding the appellant guilty, in  

our opinion, cannot be said to be against the evidence on  

record.

7.  As far as argument relating to quantum of punishment,  

as modified by the High Court, which results in consequential  

forfeiture of pensionary benefits in view of Rule 23, quoted  

above, is concerned, we do not find the punishment to be  

harsh or disproportionate to the guilt,  in view of the nature  

of the charge of which the appellant is found guilty in the

Page 6

6

present  case.  Time and again,  this  Court  has  consistently  

held that in such matters no sympathy should be shown by  

the Courts.

8. In  Divisional  Controller,  N.E.K.R.T.C  v.  M.  

Amaresh1,   this  Court,  in  para  18  of  the  judgment  has  

expressed the views on this point as under:

“ In the instant case, the misappropriation of the funds  by the delinquent  employee was only  Rs  360.95.  This  Court  has  considered  the  punishment  that  may  be  awarded  to  the  delinquent  employees  who  misappropriated  the  funds  of  the  Corporation  and  the  factors  to  be  considered.  This  Court  in  a  catena  of  judgments held that the loss of confidence is the primary  factor  and  not  the  amount  of  money  misappropriated  and that the sympathy or generosity cannot be a factor  which  is  impermissible  in  law.  When  an  employee  is  found  guilty  of  pilferage  or  of  misappropriating  the  Corporation’s  funds,  there  is  nothing  wrong  in  the  Corporation  losing  confidence  or  faith  in  such  an  employee and awarding punishment of dismissal. In such  cases,  there  is  no  place  for  generosity  or  misplaced  sympathy  on  the  part  of  the  judicial  forums  and  interfering  therefore  with  the  quantum  of  punishment…………….”.  

9.  In Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) v. A.T.  

Mane2  in  which unaccounted amount was only Rs.93/- this  

Court expressed its opinion in para 12 as under:

1 (2006) 6 SCC 187 2 (2005) 3 SCC 254

Page 7

7

“ Coming to the question of quantum of punishment,  one  should  bear  in  mind  the  fact  that  it  is  not  the  amount  of  money  misappropriated  that  becomes  a  primary  factor  for  awarding  punishment;  on  the  contrary,  it  is  the  loss  of  confidence  which  is  the  primary factor to be taken into consideration.  In our  opinion,  when  a  person  is  found  guilty  of  misappropriating  the  corporation’s  funds,  there  is  nothing wrong in the corporation losing confidence or  faith in such a person and awarding a punishment of  dismissal”.

10.  In Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal and another v.  

State  of  Maharashtra3,  this  Court  has  made  following  

observations in paragraph 25 of  the judgment: -

“…..  In the present day scenario,  corruption has  been treated to have the potentiality of corroding  the  marrows  of  the  economy.   There  are  cases  where the amount is small, and in certain cases, it  is extremely high.  The gravity of the offence in  such a case, in our considered opinion, is not to be  adjudged on the bedrock of the quantum of bribe.  An attitude to abuse the official position to extend  favour  in  lieu  of  benefit  is  a  crime  against  the  collective and an anathema to the basic tenets of  democracy, for it erodes the faith of the people in  the system.  It creates an incurable concavity in  the Rule of Law….”

11. In  Rajasthan  State  Road  Transport  Corporation  

and another v. Bajrang Lal4, this Court, following the case  

of  Municipal  Committee,  Bahadurgarh  v.  Krishnan  

3 (2013) 4 SCC 642 4 (2014) 4 SCC 693

Page 8

8

Behari  and  others5,  has  opined  that  in  cases  involving  

corruption  there  cannot  be  any  other  punishment  than  

dismissal.  It has been further held that any sympathy shown  

in such cases is totally uncalled for and opposed to public  

interest.   The  amount  misappropriated  may  be  small  or  

large; it is the act of misappropriation that is relevant.  In  

said case (Rajasthan SRTC),  the respondent/employee was  

awarded punishment of removal from service.  In the present  

case  it  is  compulsory  retirement.  Learned  counsel  for  

respondents  submitted  that  on  earlier  occasion,  appellant  

was  awarded  minor  punishment,  for  his  misconduct,  

regarding defalcation of stamps.  And now he is found guilty  

for the second time.

12. Therefore,  in the above circumstances in view of the  

law laid down by this Court, as above, we are not inclined to  

interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court.  

Accordingly,  the  appeal  is  dismissed  with  no  order  as  to  

costs.

5 (1996) 2 SCC 714

Page 9

9

………………………………J. [Vikramajit Sen]

………………………………J.                                               [Prafulla C. Pant]

New Delhi; January  5, 2015.