Dismissed

Shri Binod Kumar v. Life Insurance Corporation of India and 5 Others

Allahabad HC18 Apr 2018WRIA/32753/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a departmental punishment order imposing reduction in pay scales. The petitioner had been punished for fraudulent handling of a death claim involving non-existent persons. The court held the enquiry was conducted in accordance with natural justice and found sufficient evidence, thus refusing to interfere.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as it lacks merit.

Shri Binod Kumar Vs Life Insurance… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 34

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 32753 of 2013 Petitioner :- Shri Binod Kumar Respondent :- Life Insurance Corporation Of India And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyaveer Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Manish Goyal,V.K. Chandel

¶4

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Satyaveer Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri V.K. Chandel, learned counsel for respondents.

¶6

This writ petition is directed against order of punishment passed by disciplinary authority on 31.03.2005, imposing penalty of "reduction by three stages in the time scale of pay applicable to his cadre" in which petitioner was working, as well as appellate order dated 04.10.2012, whereby petitioner's appeal has been rejected.

¶7

Petitioner was Branch Manager. Vide charge sheet dated 20.08.2010, following two charges were levelled against him :-

¶8

"1. THAT you investigated the death claim under Policy No. 563292727 on the life of Shri Manish Kumar (deceased) and submitted Claim Investigation Report dated 08.03.2009despite the fact that the Sum Assured under aforesaid policy was not within your financial limit for claim investigation and the claim investigation was not entrusted to you.

¶9

2. THAT, with fraudulent intention to deceive the Corporation, you recommended the admission of death claim under the Policy No. 563292727 on the life of non existent person, Shri Manish Kumar. In the aforesaid Claim Investigation Report dated 08.03.2009, you confirmed that Shri Manish Kumar s/o Shri Patiram was residing at c/o Goverdhan Singh, H.No. 232/1, Awas Vikas Colony, Kasganj, Distt., Etah and died at Uddaitpur on 02.02.2009, whereas the above address pertains to Shri Pranveer Singh and no person named Shri Manish Kumar or Shri Goverdhan Singh ever stayed there and no one named Shri Manish Kumar expired in Uddaitpur (Bareilly) on 02.02.2009. The death certificate issued in the name of the aforesaid Shri Manish Kumar is also forged. Thus, by your above mentioned acts, you have violated the laid down procedures for investigation in Death Claim cases and displayed dereliction to duty."

¶10

Reply dated 30.08.2010 was submitted by petitioner refuting charges levelled against him. Thereafter, Inquiry Officer submitted

¶11

¶12

inquiry report on 28.02.2011 holding charges proved. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 10.10.2011 was issued to petitioner who submitted reply thereto and thereafter impugned punishment was awarded vide order dated 31.03.2012 passed by respondent - 3, Executive Director (Personnel), Mumbai imposing penalty of reduction by three stages in the time scale of pay applicable to petitioner.

¶13

Appeal against the aforesaid order was also dismissed by Appellate Authority vide order dated 04.10.2012. Thereafter, matter was taken to Chairman, L.I.C., respondent - 1 who vide order dated 18.02.2013 dismissed memorial dated 05.01.2013 preferred by petitioner.

¶14

We have carefully perused punishment order as well as appellate order and find that they are well discussed and reasoned orders.

¶15

Despite repeated query, learned counsel for petitioner could not demonstrate any error or illegality in the decision making process resorted by Disciplinary Authority.

¶16

It was contended on behalf of petitioner that Inquiry Officer based his inquiry report on statements given by local residents who earlier made positive statements at the time of verification of claim by petitioner, but subsequently, they retracted from their own statements and tendered different statements before Inquiry Officer under pressure, against petitioner.

¶17

Inquiry Officer in his report has discussed in detail the statements of local residents namely Govardhan Singh, Ranveer Singh, Naubat Singh, Lakhan Singh, Gaya Prasad Verma, Pradhan Keshav Singh and Dr. R.S. Verma, who were produced by Presenting Officer as P-3 to P- 13. Findings of Inquiry Officer in this regard reads as under :-

¶18

" mijksDr of.kZr lHkh nLrkostksa o lk{;ksa ¼ P- 3 ls P- 13½ ds voyksdu ls ;g ckr iw.kZ :i ls Li"V o izekf.kr gksrh gS fd chek/kkjd Jh euh"k dqekj s/o

¶19

¶20

Jh ikrhjke] irk c/o Jh xkso/kZu flag] 232@ 1] vkokl fodkl dkyksuh dklxat] ukfer (Nominee) Jherh lkfo=h nsoh iq=h Jh panziky fuoklh xkao & mnnSriqj ftyk& ,Vk lHkh QthZ] dkYifud o vfLrRoghu (NonExistent) gSaA chek/kkjd euh"k dqekj ,oa ukfer iRuh Jherh lkfo=h nsoh dkYifud o vfLrRoghu (Non- Existent Persons ) gSaA ikfylh esa fn;k x;k irk] eR;q dk LFkku] eR;q izek.k i=] chekjh dk fooj.k o LFkku] bykt djus okys MkDVj dk izek.ki=] eqgj] gLrk{kj lHkh QthZ o cuk;s gq, (Managed) lkfcr gq, gSA "

¶21

“ On perusal of all above mentioned documents and evidences (P-3 to P-13), this fact is clearly proved that policy holder namely Sri Manish Kumar s/o Sri Paatiram, address-c/o Sri Goverdhan Singh, 232/1, Awas Vikas Colony, Kasganj and nominee namely Smt. Savitri Devi d/o Sri Chandrapal, r/o Village Uddaitpur, District Etah, are all fake, fictitious, imaginary and non-existent. Policy holder Shri Manish Kumar and nominee wife Smt. Savitri Devi are imaginary and non-existent. The address, place of death, death certificate, place and particulars of illness, certificate, seal and signature of doctor who treated given in policy, have all been proved fake and managed.”

¶22

(English Translation by Court)

¶23

On the basis of statements of witnesses as well as documentary evidences adduced before Inquiry Officer, he has found that alleged policy holder Manish Kumar and his alleged wife namely Smt. Savitri Devi as also address mentioned in policy were all forged since no such person ever existed on the address given in policy. Thus, argument of learned counsel for petitioner is without any substance.

¶24

Learned counsel for petitioner despite repeated query could not show any perversity or misreading of evidence or any such contradiction in the evidence and finding so as to demonstrate that the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer and accepted by Disciplinary Authority / Appellate Authority can be said to be perverse or based on no evidence. It cannot be doubted that the charges found proved against the petitioner are very serious and deserves a major penalty. Moreover, no error could be shown by counsel for petitioner in decision making process adopted by Disciplinary Authority.

¶25

Scope of judicial review in such matters is extremely limited. The

¶26

¶27

scope of judicial review and interference in the matter of disciplinary proceedings has been examined in detail by a Division Bench of this Court in Sarvesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. & Anr., 2006 (2) ESC 1153 , and after considering a catena of decisions on the subject, this Court has crystallized the aspects which can be examined by the Court and which may justify judicial interference and not otherwise, which are reproduced as under:

¶28

"(1) The Tribunal exercising quasi judicial functions neither bound to follow the procedure prescribed for trial of actions in Courts nor bound by the strict rules of evidence.

¶29

(2) They may obtain all information material for the points under enquiry and act upon the same provided it is brought to the notice of the party and fair opportunity is afforded to explain.

¶30

(3) The judicial enquiry is to determine whether the authority holding enquiry is competent, and whether the procedure prescribed is in accordance with the principle of natural justice.

¶31

(4) There should exist some evidence accepted by the competent authority which may reasonably support the contention about the guilt of the officer. Adequacy or reliability of the evidence can not be looked into by the Court.

¶32

(5) The departmental authorities are the sole judges of facts and if there be some legal evidence on which their findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the Court.

¶33

(6) There is no allergy to hear-se evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible.

¶34

(7) The essence of a judicial approach is objectivity, exclusion of extraneous materials or considerations and observance of rules of natural justice.

¶35

(8) It is not necessary that the Disciplinary authority should discuss material in detail and contest the conclusions of the Inquiry Office.

¶36

(9) The judicial review is extended only when there is no evidence or the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached on the basis of the material available."

¶37

The legal dictum with the passage of time has not gone under any substantial change and the subsequent authorities of Apex Court also have reiterated what has been noticed above. In A. Savariar Vs. The

¶38

¶39

Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and another, 2013(3) SC 170 the Court has said:

¶40

"The scope of judicial review in matters involving challenge to the disciplinary action taken by the employer is very limited. The Courts are primarily concerned with the question whether the enquiry has been held by the competent authority in accordance with the prescribed procedure and whether the rules of natural justice have been followed. The Court can also consider whether there was some tangible evidence for proving the charge against the delinquent and such evidence reasonably supports the conclusions recorded by the competent authority. If the Court comes to the conclusion that the enquiry was held in consonance with the prescribed procedure and the rules of natural justice and the conclusion recorded by the disciplinary authority is supported by some tangible evidence, then there is no scope for interference with the discretion exercised by the disciplinary authority to impose the particular punishment except when the same is found to be wholly disproportionate to the misconduct found proved or shocks the conscience of the Court."

¶41

Learned counsel for petitioner could not show anything before us so as to justify interference in the otherwise well discussed and well evidenced finding recorded by the authorities concerned against the petitioner.

¶42

Writ petition lacks merit. Dismissed.

¶43

Order Date :- 18.4.2018/sailesh

Shri Binod Kumar v. Life Insurance Corporation of India and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Binod Kumar v. Life Insurance Corporation of India and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anshuman Kumar Pathak Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dhananjay Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Praveen Kumar Mishra Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Alpana Agarawal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Manvendra Shastri Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Dr. Sanjesh Kumar and Ors. Vs Union of India Thru Cabinet Secy. and Ors.