DIWAN SINGH Vs L.I.C. .
Bench: VIKRAMAJIT SEN,PRAFULLA C. PANT
Case number: C.A. No.-003655-003655 / 2010
Diary number: 1710 / 2010
Advocates: GAURAV AGRAWAL Vs
A. V. RANGAM
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.