# Kishan Singh Hyanki v. The Chairman, L.I.C, Mumbai Central Office, Mumbai & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 8 ILRA 718
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-07-01
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 4847 of 2021
- **Bench:** Suneet Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kishan-singh-hyanki-v-the-chairman-l-i-c-mumbai-central-office-mumbai-ors-47298
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Law
-
Departmental
Enquiry/Dismissal - L.I.C. of India (Staff)
Regulations, 1960 - In the case of
misconduct of a bank officer or employee,
including
the
Corporation,
if
the
officer/employee is found guilty of any
kind
of
the
financial
irregularities
irrespective of the amount involved, no
punishment
less
than
dismissal/termination should be passed.
Any plea of leniency or sympathy regarding the
quantum of amount or nature of misconduct is
totally misplaced. (Para 22)

B. financial misconduct by an employee of
a
financial
institution,
is
a
serious
misconduct. Corporation lost faith, confidence
and trust in the petitioner and in such
circumstances continuing him as an employee
on the post of Cashier would jeopardise the
interest of the Corporation and expose genuine
policy holders to risk of fraudulent transactions.
(Para 13, 15, 16)

Quantum of embezzlement is not relevant,
it is the act of committing embezzlement
that
determines
the
quantum
of
punishment. (Para 14)

C. Scope of Judicial Review - A High
Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction
u/Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot
sit in appeal over the findings of fact
recorded by a competent Tribunal in a
properly conducted departmental enquiry
except when it be shown that the
impugned findings were not supported by
any evidence. Whether or not the evidence on
which the Tribunal relied was satisfactory and
sufficient for justifying its conclusion would not
fall to be considered in a writ petition. (Para 18)

The jurisdiction is circumscribed and
confined to correct errors of law or
procedural error, if any, resulting in
manifest
miscarriage
of
justice
or
violation of principles of natural justice.
This apart, even when some defect is found in
the decision-making process, the Court must
8 All. Kishan Singh Hyanki Vs. The Chairman, L.I.C., Mumbai Central Office, Mumbai & Ors. 719
exercise its discretionary power with great
caution keeping in mind the larger public
interest and only when it comes to the
conclusion that overwhelming public interest
requires
interference,
the
Court
should
intervene. (Para 17 to 21)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-3)

Precedent followed:

## Text

718 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

11. We are of the considered view that
the learned Single Judge has rightly taken
the view that the amount of the medical
bills of the respondent no.1 shall be paid in
terms of 'Uttar Pradesh Government
Servants (Medical and Attendance) Rules,
2011',
particularly
when
the
earlier
government orders operating the field were
not adequate to grant the reimbursement of
medical bills and expenses incurred by
Government Servants and the Government
itself had framed these Rules for that
purpose.

12. It is to be noted that the
Government Servant cannot be denied the
benefit of said Rules simply because at the
time of accident the said Rules were not
applicable. The 'Uttar Pradesh Government
Servants (Medical and Attendance) Rules,
2011' shall be made available to all such
cases where the reimbursement of the
medical bills and expenses have not been
settled by the Government and the decision
is pending in this regard.

13. The special appeal, with these
observations is dismissed.
----------
(2021)08ILR A718
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.

Writ A No. 4847 of 2021

Kishan Singh Hyanki ...Petitioner
Versus
The Chairman, L.I.C, Mumbai Central
Office, Mumbai & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vishal Agrawal
Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Siddharth Singhal, Ms. Divya Chaurasia

A.
Service
Law
-
Departmental
Enquiry/Dismissal - L.I.C. of India (Staff)
Regulations, 1960 - In the case of
misconduct of a bank officer or employee,
including
the
Corporation,
if
the
officer/employee is found guilty of any
kind
of
the
financial
irregularities
irrespective of the amount involved, no
punishment
less
than
dismissal/termination should be passed.
Any plea of leniency or sympathy regarding the
quantum of amount or nature of misconduct is
totally misplaced. (Para 22)

B. financial misconduct by an employee of
a
financial
institution,
is
a
serious
misconduct. Corporation lost faith, confidence
and trust in the petitioner and in such
circumstances continuing him as an employee
on the post of Cashier would jeopardise the
interest of the Corporation and expose genuine
policy holders to risk of fraudulent transactions.
(Para 13, 15, 16)

Quantum of embezzlement is not relevant,
it is the act of committing embezzlement
that
determines
the
quantum
of
punishment. (Para 14)

C. Scope of Judicial Review - A High
Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction
u/Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot
sit in appeal over the findings of fact
recorded by a competent Tribunal in a
properly conducted departmental enquiry
except when it be shown that the
impugned findings were not supported by
any evidence. Whether or not the evidence on
which the Tribunal relied was satisfactory and
sufficient for justifying its conclusion would not
fall to be considered in a writ petition. (Para 18)

The jurisdiction is circumscribed and
confined to correct errors of law or
procedural error, if any, resulting in
manifest
miscarriage
of
justice
or
violation of principles of natural justice.
This apart, even when some defect is found in
the decision-making process, the Court must
8 All. Kishan Singh Hyanki Vs. The Chairman, L.I.C., Mumbai Central Office, Mumbai & Ors. 719
exercise its discretionary power with great
caution keeping in mind the larger public
interest and only when it comes to the
conclusion that overwhelming public interest
requires
interference,
the
Court
should
intervene. (Para 17 to 21)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-3)

Precedent followed:

1. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs Nemi
Chand Nalwaya, (2011) 4 SCC 584 (Para 15)

2. S.B.I. & ors. Vs S.N. Goyal, (2008) 8 SCC 92
(Para 15)

3. T.N.C.S. Corpn. Ltd. & ors. Vs K. Meerabai,
(2006) 2 SCC 255 (Para 16)

4. Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager
Vs Nikunja Bihari Patnaik, 1996 (9) SCC 69
(Para 16)

5. Chairman and Managing Director, United
Commercial Bank Vs P.C. Kakkar, 2003 (4) SCC
364 (Para 16)

6. State of Madras Vs G. Sundaram, AIR 1965
SC 1103 (Para 18)

7. State of Andhra Pradesh Vs Sree Rama Rao,
AIR 1968 SC 1728 (Para 19)

8. S.B.I. Vs Ramesh Dinkar Punde, (2006) 7 SCC
212 (Para 19)

9. Nirmala J. Jhala Vs St. of Guj. & anr., (2013)
4 SCC 301 (Para 19)

10. S.R. Tewari Vs U.O.I. & anr., (2013) 6 SCC
602 (Para 21)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Suneet Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Shri Vishal Agarwal, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Divya
Chaurasiya, learned counsel holding brief of
Shri Siddharth Singhal, learned counsel for the
respondents through video conferencing.

2. The petition is being decided of at
the admission stage, as per rules, on the
consent of the parties.

3. Petitioner a Cashier (SR No.
249026) at Branch Office, Gola in
Lucknow
Division,
had
to
face
departmental enquiry. A charge-sheet dated
21 November 2016, was issued by the third
respondent-Senior
Division
Manager,
Divisional Officer, Hazratganj, Lucknow
(Disciplinary Authority). Petitioner was
charged with six charges with allegations of
committing financial irregularities and
embezzlement. The charges briefly stated is
as follows:

i. that petitioner while posted as
Cashier in Branch Office, Palia, District
Lakhimpur Kheri misused official position
and
misappropriated
eight
cheques
favouring
"L.I.C.
of
India"
thereby
facilitating siphoning of funds and misused
it for the benefit of himself, his wife and
persons not related to genuine policy
holders;

ii. that petitioner in connivance
with the record Clerk, Shri Anand Kumar
(SR No. 254146) while performing duties
as
Officiating
Cashier
fraudulently
misappropriated cheque of Rs. 13431/-
prepared in favour of ''L.I.C. of India'
against surrender proceeds under a policy
together with cash of Rs. 2385/- without
authority and misused it for himself and his
wife and persons not related to the genuine
policy holders.

iii. that petitioner put himself as a
witness on a form for surrender of policy
whereas the signature of the policy holder
did not match with the proposal form of the
same policy;

iv. that petitioner prepared a
cheque favouring ''L.I.C. of India' without
720 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
any application/document submitted by the
policy holder for the said cheque;

v. that the petitioner despite being
a regular Cashier validated the loan
voucher at Rs. 38,000/- under a policy
which
was
raised
without
necessary
documents and validated the transaction,
whereas, the cheque for the said amount
was
prepared
without
necessary
documents/applications submitted by the
policy holder.

vi. that petitioner being a regular
Cashier prepared loan voucher raising
loan of Rs. 51,000/- without obtaining
necessary documents and recording the
loan details in the loan register.

4. It is alleged that as a consequence
of the misconduct financial loss was caused
to the Corporation at Rs. 1,61,864.30 paise
of which Rs. 1,17,622.80 paise was
misappropriated towards various policies
by the petitioner himself and for his wife.
Rs. 44,241.50 paise was misappropriated
towards various policies of persons other
than the original policy holders. The details
of
the
cheques/documents
and
the
fraudulent transaction/figures were detailed
in the charge-sheet.

5. Provisions of L.I.C. of India (Staff)
Regulations, 1960 (for short ''Regulations'),
governs the petitioner for disciplinary
proceedings and imposition of penalty.

6. Petitioner participated in the
disciplinary proceedings and contested by
filing a written statement denying the
charges.
Petitioner
also
tendered
unconditional apology to the Enquiry
Committee. The Enquiry Officer upon
following the Regulations and after giving
opportunity to the petitioner and on
perusal/examination of documents held
Charge No. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 proved against
the petitioner. Enquiry report dated 17 July
2017, was submitted to the disciplinary
authority. The fourth respondent passed
impugned order dated 30 July 2018,
agreeing with the enquiry report, imposing
punishment of removal from service and
recovery
at
Rs.
1,54,696.60
paise.
Aggrieved, petitioner preferred an appeal
before
the
second
respondent-Zonal
Manager, North Central Zone, Kanpur,
which came to be rejected vide order dated
21 February 2019, thereafter, petitioner
preferred a Memorial dated 22 April 2019,
before the first respondent-Chairman, Life
Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai
which was rejected vide order dated 1
August 2019.

7. The aforementioned orders are
under challenge.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that petitioner has deposited the
fine imposed by the impugned orders,
therefore, no loss was caused; petitioner
merely carried out verbal instructions of his
superior officials; there was no personal
interest of the petitioner in the alleged
charge; petitioner is the sole bread earner of
the family and is facing hardship after
passing of the impugned orders; petitioner
committed
mistake
due
to
lack
of
knowledge; petitioner has not committed
any fraud or cheating; the impugned orders
have been passed without application of
mind.

9.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondent-Corporation submits that the
procedure prescribed under the Regulations
was duly followed; petitioner was given
full opportunity to defend himself; the
charges have been proved by documentary
evidence which was duly produced before
the enquiry officer; petitioner is guilty of
8 All. Kishan Singh Hyanki Vs. The Chairman, L.I.C., Mumbai Central Office, Mumbai & Ors. 721
embezzling
the
money
due
to
the
Corporation and policy holders; the money
embezelled was used for personal and for
his family members. It is not the case of the
petitioner that there is any perversity in the
findings recorded by the authorities.
Petition being devoid of merit is liable to
be dismissed.

10. Rival submissions fall for
consideration.

11. The first respondent Chairman of
the Corporation, on perusal of the record and
the objections raised by the petitioner noted
that he was satisfied that the procedure
prescribed for initiation and completion of the
disciplinary
proceedings
under
the
Regulations was adhered to by Enquiry
Officer, reasonable opportunity was afforded
to the petitioner to raise his defence in respect
of the charge. It is further noted that finding
of guilt recorded by the disciplinary authority
is based on evidence available on record and
on the facts and circumstances of the case.
The disciplinary authority has considered the
objection of the petitioner that he was
performing
his
duties
as
per
verbal
instructions of his superior officials and that
the transactions were carried out by the
petitioner with no motive to cheat but to the
best of his knowledge. The authority noted
that the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary
Authority duly considered the objections
raised by the petitioner but lacks merit in the
backdrop of admitted documentary evidence.
The instructions, even if, carried out on
verbal
orders
against
the
mandated
procedures or in violation of the rules of the
Corporation is of no avail to the petitioner. It
is further noted in the impugned orders that
objection is untenable, admittedly, petitioner
himself
benefited
from
the
fraudulent
transactions and knowingly adjusted the
embezzled amount in favour of his own
policies and policies of his wife. Petitioner
misappropriated
the
proceeds
which
admittedly pertains to other genuine policy
holders without their authority or approval. It
is further noted that plea of the petitioner that
he lacks procedural knowledge is without any
basis as he had joined the Corporation in
2009 and took charge as Cashier in 2011.

12. The final objection of the petitioner
that he is the sole bread earner and
punishment imposed would subject his
family to hardship was also not accepted by
the authorities. It is noted in the order that on
the strength of the documents on record,
minutes of the proceedings and enquiry
report, disciplinary authority had rightly
arrived at the conclusion of guilt after duly
evaluating the evidence, the facts and
circumstances of the case and after due and
reasonable opportunity being afforded to the
petitioner to defend himself.

13. The punishment imposed is
commensurate to the guilt committed by
the petitioner. A financial misconduct by an
employee of a financial institution, is a
serious misconduct. Corporation lost faith,
confidence and trust in the petitioner and in
such circumstances continuing him as an
employee on the post of Cashier would
jeopardise the interest of the Corporation
and expose genuine policy holders to risk
of fraudulent transactions.

14. The contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that no loss was
caused to the bank lacks merit. Quantum of
embezzlement is not relevant, it is the act
of
committing
embezzlement
that
determines the quantum of punishment.

15. Supreme Court in State Bank of
Bikaner and Jaipur versus Nemi Chand
Nalwaya1, held that termination by way of
722 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
punishment was justified for loss of
confidence in an employee by a bank for
causing loss to the bank. Similarly, in State
Bank of India and others Versus S.N.
Goyal,2
the Apex
Court
held
that
temporary misappropriation of customer's
money by Bank employee is a serious
misconduct
warranting
removal
from
service and tantamounts to breach of trust.

16. In the case of T.N.C.S. Corpn.
Ltd.
and
Ors.
(appellants)
v.
K.
Meerabai (respondent)3, the plea of no
loss or quantum of loss was rejected by the
Court. It was pointed out at page SCC 267
para 29 as under:

"The scope of judicial review is
very limited. Sympathy or generosity as a
factor is impermissible. In our view, loss of
confidence is the primary factor and not the
amount of money mis-appropriated. In the
instant case, respondent employee is found
guilty
of
mis-
appropriating
the
Corporation funds. There is nothing wrong
in the Corporation losing confidence or
faith in such an employee and awarding
punishment of dismissal."

(Refer: Disciplinary Authoritycum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari
Patnaik4;
Chairman
and
Managing
Director, United Commercial Bank v. P.C.
Kakkar5)

17. The scope of judicial review
under Article 226 is very limited.

18. The Supreme Court in the case of
State of Madras vs. G. Sundaram6 had
explained the scope of judicial review::-

"7. It is well settled now that a
High Court, in the exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution, cannot sit in appeal over the
findings of fact recorded by a competent
Tribunal
in
a
properly
conducted
departmental enquiry except when it be
shown that the impugned findings were not
supported by any evidence.

Whether or not the evidence on
which the Tribunal relied was satisfactory
and sufficient for justifying its conclusion
would not fall to be considered in a writ
petition."

19. Similar view was emphatically
expressed in State of Andhra Pradesh v.
Sree Rama Rao7, wherein it was held that

"But the departmental authorities
are, if the enquiry is otherwise properly
held 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 High
Court in a proceeding for a writ under
Article 226 of the Constitution."

(Refer: State Bank of India vs.
Ramesh Dinkar Punde8, Nirmala J.
Jhala vs. State of Gujarat and another9)

20. The jurisdiction is circumscribed
and confined to correct errors of law or
procedural error, if any, resulting in
manifest miscarriage of justice or violation
of principles of natural justice. This apart,
even when some defect is found in the
decision- making process, the Court must
exercise its discretionary power with great
caution keeping in mind the larger public
interest and only when it comes to the
conclusion
that
overwhelming
public
interest requires interference, the Court
should intervene.

21. The findings of fact recorded by a
tribunal can be held to be perverse if the
findings have been arrived at by ignoring or
8 All. Divya Prakash Mishra & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
723
excluding relevant material or by taking
into consideration irrelevant/inadmissible
material. The finding may also be said to be
perverse if it is against the weight of
evidence, or if the finding so outrageously
defies logic as to suffer from the vice of
irrationality. If a decision is arrived at on
the basis of no evidence or thoroughly
unreliable evidence and no reasonable
person would act upon it, the order would
be perverse. But if there is some evidence
on record which is acceptable and which
could be relied upon, the conclusions
would not be treated as perverse and the
findings would not be interfered with.
(Refer: S.R. Tewari vs. Union of India
and another10)

22. The principle of law that emanates
from the above noted judgments are that in
the case of misconduct of a bank officer or
employee, including the Corporation, if the
officer/employee is found guilty of any
kind
of
the
financial
irregularities
irrespective of the amount involved, no
punishment less than dismissal/termination
should be passed. Any plea of leniency or
sympathy regarding the quantum of amount
or
nature
of
misconduct
is
totally
misplaced.

23. Having due regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case and material
placed on record, the Court declines to
interfere in the matter.

24. It is clarified that no other point or
ground was pressed.

25. The writ petition being devoid of
merit is, accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2021)08ILR A723
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.

Writ A No. 9614 of 2018
connected with other cases

Divya Prakash Mishra & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri
Rakesh
Pande,
Avadhesh
Kumar
Upadhyay, Ms. Vishakha Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Avneesh Tripathi, M.N. Singh

A. Service Law - Recruitment - U.P.
Intermediate Education Act, 1921- Uttar
Pradesh Subordinate Educational (Trained
Graduates Grade) Service Rules, 1983:
Rule 10- Uttar Pradesh Public Services
(Relaxation
of
the
age
limits
for
recruitment) Rules, 1992- Rule 3 - Once
the advertisement is issued and the
candidate
applies,
the
right
of
consideration in terms of Article 16 of the
Constitution of India would arise in favour
of such candidate. The Courts while
affirming the right of employer to cancel
the
recruitment
and
initiating
the
recruitment afresh have recognized a
limited light of age relaxation in certain
circumstances. (Para 22)

Two distinct factual scenarios need to be
carefully examined. The first exigency is where
vacancies have arisen, but recruitment itself has
not been initiated. The second exigency is
where the vacancy arises and recruitment has
also commenced, but for justifiable grounds the
recruitment
exercise
is
cancelled
before
issuance of select list and the recruitment
process is initiated, afresh, as per the amended
policy/rules. (Para 19)

Present case is w.r.t. the second exigency.
Hon'ble Court held that even if previous