# Shri Krishna Mishra v. L.I.C. of India, Central Office, Mumbai & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 8 ILRA 350
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-05-05
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 44003 of 2016
- **Bench:** Ajit Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shri-krishna-mishra-v-l-i-c-of-india-central-office-mumbai-ors-50636
- **Pages:** 16

## Headnote

Civil Law - Life Insurance Corporation of
India
(Staff)
Regulations,
1960
-
Constitution of India,1950 - Articles 14 &
226 - The petitioner, a Class I officer with LIC,
faced disciplinary proceedings for approving
maturity claims under two policies allegedly
without proper verification. Charges included
improper execution of surety and indemnity
bonds by agents from different branches,
differences in policyholder signatures, and
premature claim disbursal, allegedly causing
financial loss to LIC. The enquiry officer
exonerated the petitioner on most charges,
finding no evidence of fraud or loss, but held
charge 1-A partially valid due to the absence of
the original policy bond. The disciplinary
authority
disagreed,
imposed
penalties
(reduction in pay scale and recovery of Rs.
50,508), and the appellate authority upheld this.
The petitioner challenged these orders under
Article 226.

Held: No evidence of fraud or financial loss to
LIC. No rule requiring sureties or witnesses to
be from the same branch. Lack of complaints
from
policyholders.
Disciplinary
authority's
failure to provide cogent reasons or evidence to
contradict the enquiry officer's findings. The
charge regarding the absence of the original
policy bond was irrelevant as it was not part of
the chargesheet. Since the petitioner had
retired, remand was deemed unnecessary. The
petitioner was entitled to reinSt.ment in the
same pay grade, arrears, and refund of
8 All. Shri Krishna Mishra Vs. L.I.C. of India, Central Office, Mumbai & Ors.
351
recovered amounts. Writ petition allowed;
orders quashed; consequential benefits granted.

Writ petition allowed.

Case Law Discussed:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,913 of 56,148. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39913 for what follows._

350 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
found that original writ petitioner possessed
essential qualification before the last date
of submission of the application form set
aside the action of the Food Corporation of
India in rejecting the candidature of the
original writ petitioner, this Court for the
reasons given above is of the view that
rejection
of
the
candidature
of
the
petitioner is arbitrary exercise of power by
the respondent in the facts of the present
case. Consequently, the argument of
learned counsel for the Commission based
on clause 10 of the important instructions
of the advertisement which gives power to
the Commission to cancel the candidature
of
a
candidate
or
withdraw
the
recommendation for appointment in the
facts of the present case is not sustainable
since this Court has held that action of the
Commission in rejecting the representation
of the petitioner is an arbitrary exercise of
power.

48. Thus, for the reasons given above,
this Court is of the view that the impugned
order dated 16.11.2022 passed by the
Secretary, Public Service Commission,
Prayagraj cannot be sustained in law and is
hereby set aside. Further, a direction is
issued to respondent no.4 to grant the
benefit
of
experience
certificate
and
consider the candidature of the petitioner
for appointment on merit, if all other
conditions stand satisfied.

49. Consequently, the writ petition is
allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 350
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J
Writ A No. 44003 of 2016

Shri Krishna Mishra ...Petitioner
Versus
L.I.C. of India, Central Office, Mumbai &
Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri P.K. Singhal, Sri Vinay Kumar Mishra, Sri
Vishesh Rajvanshi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Manish Goyal, Sri Pramod Kumar
Dubey, Sri Sanjit Singh, Sri Sanjeev Singh
(Senior Adv.)

Civil Law - Life Insurance Corporation of
India
(Staff)
Regulations,
1960
-
Constitution of India,1950 - Articles 14 &
226 - The petitioner, a Class I officer with LIC,
faced disciplinary proceedings for approving
maturity claims under two policies allegedly
without proper verification. Charges included
improper execution of surety and indemnity
bonds by agents from different branches,
differences in policyholder signatures, and
premature claim disbursal, allegedly causing
financial loss to LIC. The enquiry officer
exonerated the petitioner on most charges,
finding no evidence of fraud or loss, but held
charge 1-A partially valid due to the absence of
the original policy bond. The disciplinary
authority
disagreed,
imposed
penalties
(reduction in pay scale and recovery of Rs.
50,508), and the appellate authority upheld this.
The petitioner challenged these orders under
Article 226.

Held: No evidence of fraud or financial loss to
LIC. No rule requiring sureties or witnesses to
be from the same branch. Lack of complaints
from
policyholders.
Disciplinary
authority's
failure to provide cogent reasons or evidence to
contradict the enquiry officer's findings. The
charge regarding the absence of the original
policy bond was irrelevant as it was not part of
the chargesheet. Since the petitioner had
retired, remand was deemed unnecessary. The
petitioner was entitled to reinSt.ment in the
same pay grade, arrears, and refund of
8 All. Shri Krishna Mishra Vs. L.I.C. of India, Central Office, Mumbai & Ors.
351
recovered amounts. Writ petition allowed;
orders quashed; consequential benefits granted.

Writ petition allowed.

Case Law Discussed:

1. B.C. Chaturvedi Vs U.O.I., (1995) 6 SCC 749

2. U.O.I.Vs H.C. Goel, AIR 1964 SC 364

3. Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad Vs B.
Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727

4. U.O.I.Vs Subrata Nath, Special Leave to
Appeal Nos. 3524-25 of 2022 (decided on
23.11.2022)

5. Ram Krishna @ Ram Krishna Yadav Vs Indian
Oil Corporation & ors. (2023) 8 ILRA 61055

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

1. Heard Sri Vishesh Rajvanshi,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
P.K.Dubey, learned counsel for respondent
nos. 1,2 and 3.

2. The petitioner who was working
with respondent Life Insurance Corporation
(hereinafter referred to as "Corporation") as
class I officer and was posted at the District
Branch Office, Kanpur in the capacity of
Senior Branch Manager was subjected to
disciplinary proceedings in the matter of
disbursement of maturity claim under
police no. 058472150 in favour of Jagdip
Kumar Anand and also payment of
maturity claim under policy no. 058472329
in favour of one Pradeep Kumar Agarwal.

3. The chargesheet issued to the
petitioner in connection with payment
made to Jagdip Kumar Anand was to the
effect that surety form subject to which
payment settlement was made, was signed
by one Sri P.K.Gautam an agent of another
branch and the indemnity bond and
discharge voucher were signed by one Mr.
S.C. Tiwari an agent also of another
branch. Further these two documents were
witnesses by one Dr. R.K.Gupta, Veterinary
Officer of Kanpur. Since payment was
issued by C.B.O. 4 (Kanpur Branch Office
of Corporation), the issue was raised that
beneficiary
of
the
maturity
stood
impersonated.

4. Yet another ofshoot of the charge
was that signatures of Jagdip Kumar Anand
upon receipt were different from those
made on the proposal form.

5. The second charge was that
petitioner while working as Senior Branch
Manager failed to verify the authenticity of
the claim of policy holder before approving
payment of Rs. 64,975/- maturity amount
vide cheque dated 6.3.2006 drawn in
favour of Sri Jagdip Kumar Anand and so
with the encashment of the said amount,
Corporation suffered with financial loss.

6. The third charge was also similar in
nature in respect of payment of maturity
claim of Rs. 57,700/- by issuing a cheque
dated
1.6.2006
in
favour
of
Sri
P.K.Agarwal. Here in this charge, the issue
was that policy bond and discharge
vouchers were submitted by policy holder
only on 16.06.2006 whereas claim voucher
was issued on 28th March, 2006 stood
encashed. The cheque was issued on 31st
March, 2006 which would encashed on 2nd
May, 2006. Thus in substance, the charge
got impersonated and Corporation stood
defrauded and suffered financial loss of Rs.
57,700/-.

7. The petitioner submitted his reply
to the chargesheet. In respect of charge no.
1, he stated that surety was signed by Sri
P.K.Gautam who was a CM Club member
352 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
with an authorized agency code bearing no.
67/23S registered at CBO 9 and had sound
financial backing of 30,000/- monthly
income as an agent, he owned independent
house and car worth valuation of Rs.
20,00,00/- for just a claim of Rs. 64,975/-.
The sureties were witness by a respectable
citizen R.K. Gupta, a Veterinary Officer in
Kanpur. Officer admitted that indemnity
bond
and
discharge
vouchers
were
witnessed by one Sri S.C.Tiwari, an
another CM Club member with an
authorized
agency
code
being
no.
05901/232 registered at CBO 1, and the
charge was that these two agents did not
belong to CBO-4 was not maintainable
because there was no such requirement that
such surety be filed and so also indemnity
bond and discharge voucher be witnessed by
an agent of the same branch. He referred to
the claim manual and other instructions of the
Corporation in that regard, and therefore,
pleaded that charge was absolutely ill
founded. He claimed to have taken protection
while approving security regarding difference
in signatures of Jagdip Kumar Anand on the
claim document and that on the proposal
form. He claimed that signatures as per his
own eyes appeared to be identical and would
be so visible from the naked eyes. He pleaded
that in the month of 2006, he had settled
more than 800 maturity as he claims, and
therefore, involvement of the two CM Club
members not belonging to the branch did not
give him any reason to doubt about
correctness of the claim.

8. He repelled the second charge for the
same reason as second charge was sequel to
the first charge and thus submitted that there
was as a no question of any financial loss
being caused to the Corporation. He asserted
in his reply that documents were carrying
correct address of the policy holder as both
on the bond and the claim form were same
and the cheque of claim was dispatched also
at the same address. He also disclosed that
later on he came to know that the cheque was
received by one Sri V.K.Pandey a sub staff of
CBO-4
itself,
and
therefore,
any
responsibility of misuse or abuse of cheque
would be of V.K.Pandey and not of the
petitioner.

9. Regarding charge no. 3, the petitioner
claimed that entire papers were first verified
by the officer and then were placed before
him in respect of claim of one Sri
P.K.Agarwal, he submitted that it was
primary duty of the claim department to have
checked all those papers and then to forward
to the Senior Branch Manager for passing the
same. He submitted that papers were placed
before him with all documents in fact and it
was upon that he had approved payment. The
cheque of Rs. 57,700/- after approval was
prepared by accounts department and sent for
dispatch. This cheque, he claimed was also
received by Sri Uday Narayan Singh
Chauhan, the Development Officer with
Code 9025 of CBO-4, a third party and he put
his signatures in endorsement of receipt upon
dispatch register. Any use of misuse of
cheque for payment if was by a third party
then that real claimant would be a question of
enquiry from Sri Uday Narayan Singh
Chauhan only and not the petitioner. The
enquiry officer Sri Anup Kumar Agarwal
conducted an enquiry and in the enquiry
report that he submitted, he had exonerated
the petitioner from charge nos. 1-B, 2 and 3
having found them not proved so the charge
regarding payment of person other than the
real claimant Sri Jagdip Kumar Anand and
Sri Pradeep Kumar Agarwal were found not
proved and hence there was no financial loss
caused to the Corporation.

10. Regarding charge no. 1-A, which
was regarding the fact that surety was not
8 All. Shri Krishna Mishra Vs. L.I.C. of India, Central Office, Mumbai & Ors.
353
of the same branch and so also witness
being not agent of the same branch from
where policy claim was to be disbursed, the
enquiry officer while did not agree with the
stand of the department that agent should
be of the same branch from where payment
was released, but he concluded that, had the
original policy bond been there, the surety
papers would not have been required to be
submitted at all, and therefore, he claimed
that payment was made upon maturity
claim without original policy bond being
there. The findings to certain extent
virtually questioned of disbursal of claim
even in the absence of policies bond.

11. The disciplinary authority while
concurred with enquiry officer's report in
respect of chargne no. 1-A, it disagreed
with the findings of enquiry officer in
respect of charge no. 1-B, 2 and 3 and held
that from the perusal of the documents and
other evidence on record, the charges stood
established and accordingly a show cause
notice was issued to the petitioner of the
proposed penalty of lowering by a stage in
time scale of pay applicable to his cadre and
recovery of Rs. 50,508/- in terms of
Regulation 39 (1)(d)Regulation 39(1) (c) of
the Life Insurance Corporation of India Staff
Regulation, 1960. The petitioner did submit
his reply to the show cause notice and
reiterated stand already taken in reply to the
chargesheet.
The
disciplinary
authority
having found itself not satisfied with the reply
submitted by the petitioner imposed penalty,
as proposed, vide order dated 25th January,
2016. The petitioner unsuccessfully appealed
against the said order before the appellate
authority as his appeal also came to be
dismissed vide order dated 2nd August, 2016
and hence this petition.

12. The argument advanced by
learned counsel for the petitioner is that
once enquiry officer had returned a finding
that charges 1-B, 2 and 3 were not proved,
but it was necessary to have placed reliance
and
discussed
those
material
and
documents
which
compelled
the
disciplinary authority to disagree with the
findings
of
the
enquiry officer
but
disciplinary authority did not do so and
merely by referring facts has established
the charge holding petitioner guilty of those
charges, which finding is, therefore, liable
to be rendered perverse.

13. In support of his above argument,
learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that all those documents that have been
referred to in the chargesheet were very
much before the enquiry officer and the
departmental agents/ officers who deposed
before the enquiry officer in support of the
charge could not establish firstly that surety
and indemnity bond were fake surety and
notarized indemnity bond were fake or that
authorized agents may be of a different
branch signing those documents as surety
witnesses were not authorized agents, nor it
could cite any rule or manual providing for
a particular category of person to be surety
and witness to the indemnity bond and
were also required to belong to the same
branch.
He
argued
that
CM
Club
membership is common to all and only
registered
and
authorized
agents
are
members. He further submitted that the
enquiry officer while holding the petitioner
guilty of charge no. 1-A only assigned a
reason that policy bond in original was not
available
and
had
that
been
there,
indemnity bond would have not been
required.

14. He argued that the charge was not
that the original policy bond was not
available but the charge was that indemnity
bond was signed by witnesses who
354 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
belonged to another branch. He submitted,
therefore, that when a document of policy
was not in issue, the enquiry officer could
not have returned a finding against him,
and on the question of surety, indemnity
bond, no such rule was cited that such
agent must belong to the same branch and
this has been carefully noticed by enquiry
officer in his report, and so, he could not
have taken view in favour of the
department.

15. Regarding charge no. 1-B ,
learned counsel argued that enquiry officer
had tallied the signatures and admission of
the own departmental witnesses and
returned finding to the effect that style and
flow of signature of two signatures was the
same . The enquiry officer also returned a
finding that there was gap of 21 years
between execution of the policy bond and the
indemnity bond, therefore, a little variance
would not render the subsequent signature to
be doubtful. He further argued that as far as
charge no. 2 was concerned, verification
regarding authenticity of the policy holder
was not to be doubted because it was the
claim department that was to forward papers.
Had this formalities of verification etc. had
not been done by the claim department, it
would certainly not have processed file for
approval before the petitioner. It is argued
regarding third charge that enquiry officer
returned a finding that payment of maturity
claim was made on document P-16 which
bore maturity paid stamp and the officer of
the department failed to provide dispatch
form which according to the banks' case had
been received on 16.06.2006. He, therefore,
submitted, when the crucial evidence relied
upon by the bank was not produced before
the enquiry officer, the enquiry officer could
not have relied upon any such document not
produced to hold the petitioner guilty of the
charge.

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that all these aspects were required
to be dealt with by the disciplinary authority
in the first instance, prima facie, while
disagreeing with enquiry officer's report and
requiring the petitioner to submit reply to the
prima facie findings of the disciplinary
authority, afresh. He submitted that in the
entire show cause notice all that was stated in
the charge sheet had been reiterated and
petitioner had been held to be guilty of
negligence as well, but no document had
been discussed, which could be said to have
escaped the scanning eyes of the enquiry
officer. He submitted that in order to defer
from the findings of the enquiry officer, the
disciplinary authority was not required to
merely refer to the minutes of the
proceedings but to take a prima facie view
with reasons as to why it was deferring from
the findings.

17. Learned counsel for the petitioner,
therefore, summed up his arguments by
submitting that disciplinary authority did
not rely upon any departmental Life
Insurance Corporation Manual or Rules,
which would have held the surety signed by
an agent of different branch or an
indemnity bond by an agent of different
branch would not be admissible so as to
clear the maturity claims. Even on the
question of difference in signatures, the
disciplinary authority could not give a
sound reasoning to disagree with the
findings of the enquiry officer, more
especially relating to the style and flow
already admitted by its own witnesses to be
the same in respect of both the signatures.
The disciplinary authority according to
learned counsel could not refer to any such
document available with the department so
as to create doubt about signatures and if
any, it failed to supply copy thereof to the
petitioner alongwith show cause notice so
8 All. Shri Krishna Mishra Vs. L.I.C. of India, Central Office, Mumbai & Ors.
355
as to enable him to defend the findings as
far as charge no. 3 is concerned.

18. Assailing the order of the
appellate
authority,
counsel
for
the
petitioner
has
argued
that
appellate
authority has simply affirmed the decision
taken by the disciplinary authority without
recording any independent finding as to the
documents and report that could be said to
be sufficient enough to bring the charges
home so as to punish the petitioner. One
more argument has been advanced by
learned counsel for the petitioner is that,
had it been a case of complaint at the end
of the policy holders or their heirs or
successors that maturity amount had been
got encashed fraudulently by a third party,
there would have arisen an occasion for the
Corporation to take a suo motu notice of
the disbursal of the claim styling it to be a
fraudulent act on the part of the petitioner
but it was not so.

19. He further argued that the loss
would have been caused to the Corporation,
had the maturity claim gone in favour of
the petitioner who might not have been
entitled to the same or in the event of any
excess amount than due amount had been
got paid. Neither of the situation being
there, the department failed to make out a
case
of
fraudulent
payment
by
the
petitioner. He, therefore, submitted that
besides the fact that the charges could not
be
proved,
even
punishment
was
disproportionate to the charges made, there
being no loss caused to the Corporation as
there was not complaint as such. So the
Corporation was not justified to assume
loss and accordingly penalize the petitioner
with recovery. He further submitted that in
the entire service carrier of the petitioner he
had cleared hundreds of maturity claims
and never any finger was raised. Here also
the maturity claim had been released, but
the finger was raised for technical reason
that surety bond was signed by an agent not
belonging to the branch and so witness
agent of indemnity bond was not belonging
to the branch. He, therefore, argued that at
the most, petitioner could have been visited
with penalty of censure and caution and to
be more responsible and careful in future.
The punishment of reduction of one stage
in the time scale was too excessive. He
submitted that negligence if at all was
there, it was not deliberate one and if, in the
event Corporation could have proved that
agent of different branch could not have
executed surety, nor could have signed
indemnity bond as witness, it would have
been at the most on irregularity and
illegality not to the extent of impunity
because the persons who signed it both as
executant of surety and then as a witness to
the indemnity bond were not denied to be
authorized agents of the Corporation
though belonging to another branch in the
same city.

20. It is also submitted by learned
counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has
attained the age of superannuation and
recovery has already been made pursuant to
the order impugned.

21. Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the respondent in the
first instance submits that the disciplinary
authority had every right to disagree with
the findings returned in enquiry report of
enquiry officer and accordingly issued a
show cause notice . He submits that the
findings of the enquiry officer on charge
no. 1-A,-2 and 3 were even not correct for
the sufficient material available on record.
He argued that disciplinary authority in its
final order imposing penalty has discussed
all those documents and then assigned
356 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
reasons why it disagreed with the findings
of the enquiry officer and held the
petitioner guilty of the charges. He
submitted that no procedural flaw has been
claimed by the petitioner in the entire
disciplinary
proceedings
and
merely
because this Court may come to a different
conclusion from what has been arrived at
by the disciplinary authority on the basis of
documents available before it, this Court
would not sit in appeal over and above
findings returned. He argued that both the
disciplinary authority well as appellate
authority have dealt in detail with every
aspect of the matter and have correctly held
petitioner to be guilty of the charges.

22. On the question of penalty imposed
upon the petitioner, learned Senior Advocate
argued that the penalty has been imposed as per
relevant rules which authorized the authority to
impose penalty and the nature of negligence
that has been committed by the petitioner which
can be taken to be quite serious lapse in nature
because it involved disbursement of the
maturity claim against a policy. It is always duty
of officer in the rank which petitioner was to be
doubly sure that in the absence of policy bond,
indemnity bond was being signed alongwith
maturity claim form by the same person who
had signed the policy bond and that surety filed
by an agent should have been very carefully
examined and verified. Thus, he submitted that
penalty imposed is commensurate to the charge
levelled and findings returned upon the charges
by the disciplinary authority. He further argued,
alternatively, if the court is of the view that
penalty imposed is not proportionate to the
charges proved, it may remand the matter to the
disciplinary authority to take decision afresh as
far as penalty part is concerned.

23. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and having perused the records
relating to disciplinary proceedings brought
on record and also the order passed by the
disciplinary authority as well as appellate
authority and the respective arguments
raised across the bar, I am of the view that
this Court would certainly be interfering in
a case where findings returned by enquiry
officer or disciplinary authority are found
to be perverse for there being documents
speaking otherwise or for there being no
document at all to support the findings.

24. Normally the rule is that the
matter is remitted to be decided afresh from
the stage, it is found that procedural steps
have gone wrong requiring interference by
this Court or even in matters where the
Court concludes that the matter required to
be examined afresh by the disciplinary
authority or by the appellate authority and
also in matters of proportionality as to the
penalty imposed considering the charge
levelled and proved.

25. I have no reason to disagree with
the argument advanced by learned Senior
Advocate appearing for the Corporation
that in matters of disciplinary authority, the
Court would not be interfering as a rule but
there is no thumb rule either. If the findings
of the enquiry officer is found to be
perverse and disciplinary authority has
agreed or concurred with the same, and
resultant
punishment/penalty
such
a
situation
would
certainly
require
interference by this Court to arrest any
miscarriage of justice.

26. In service jurisprudence there is
no scope for an order by administrative
authority to be sustained even if not well
informed one. An employee is never in a
bargaining position with the employer for
the simple reason that its employer who
offers appointment, it is he who lays down
conditions, it is he who frames the rules
8 All. Shri Krishna Mishra Vs. L.I.C. of India, Central Office, Mumbai & Ors.
357
and it is he who also controls the game,
period of service. The employee once
appointed stands virtually caged in, and
therefore, every action of the employer is
not only to be within the four corners of the
rules but within the parameters laid in
administrative law to test an action of
administrative authority. When it comes to
the state, its instrumentality, its agency,
then an order has to pass testing anvil of
Article 14 of the Constitution, and if it
fails, it would be arbitrary action, which
would be required to be arrested to avoid
any miscarriage of justice.

27. In the present case since petitioner
has
already
attained
the
age
of
superannuation, I proceed to decide the
matter taking it not to be a case which
should be remanded at this stage.

28. From the entire facts of the
disciplinary proceedings, the charges that
have been levelled against the petitioner
can be reproduced as under:

a). One Jagish Kumar Anand
ensured with Life Corporation of India, was
paid the maturity claim under policy, on the
basis of surety form signed by LIC agent of
a different branch and witnessed by
veterinary doctor and then on the basis of
indemnity bond and discharge voucher
witnessed by another agent of a different
branch and so also witnessed by veterinary
doctor . The payment was questioned on
three grounds:

a). that surety and indemnity
bonds were not properly executed and
signatures of the ensured on the original
policy proposal form were different from
that of indemnity bond and discharge
voucher;

b). as a consequence of the above,
it was claimed that there was lack of
verification on the part of the petitioner
regarding
due
verification
of
the
authenticity of the policy holder who got
paid
the
amount
and
resultantly
Corporation suffered a loss of Rs. 64,965/-
the maturity amount; and

c).The claim of maturity amount
in favour of P.K.Agarwal got cleared and
encashed on 2.5.2006 whereas the policy
bond and discharge voucher claim to have
been
submitted
by
policy
holder
subsequently on 16.06.2006 and so it was a
case where Life Insurance Corporation is
claimed again to have suffered loss of Rs.
57,700/- the claim amount.

29. In order to establish this above
charges, the Corporation had no other
document except those mentioned in the
charges but a crucial document relating to
the third charge, the discharge voucher
dated 16.06.2006 was not produced.

30. Yet another aspect is equally
important
here
to
be
noticed
that
Corporation did not turn up to show that
any such claim made before it was
complained of by either insured persons or
their successors that maturity claim got
encashed by a third party and they had been
defrauded. It is equally worth noticing that
during disciplinary enquiry, presenting
officer of the Corporation did not produce
any manual or rules which would have
supported the charge that an agent to sign
surety or to sign the indemnity bond and
discharge voucher as witness must belong
to the same branch from where maturity
claim was to be issued. Learned Senior
Advocate appearing for the Corporation, on
a pointed query could not produce any such
manual or the rules.

31. Now it is in the backdrop of the
above, I proceed to examine the case, more
358 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
especially relating to the findings returned
by the Enquiry officer and disagreement
expressed by the disciplinary authority so
as to justify its stand in passing the order of
punishment.

32. In order to establish that surety
bond could not have been signed by the
agent not belonging to the branch from
where maturity claim was to be disbursed
and /or an indemnity bond and discharge
voucher could not have been witnessed by
an agent who did not belong to the said
branch, it was primarily a duty of the
Corporation to have presented the relevant
provisions of the manual/ or the rules of the
Corporation and in the in the absence
thereof or if there was no rule and manual,
the Corporation was required to prove that
these agents were fraudulent persons. In the
enquiry report regarding this aspect of the
matter, a finding returned is that " P.O.' has
also confirmed that there is no circular that
states that the agent should be of the same
branch". In other words, no guidelines /
circular that may have prohibited the agent
of other branch to be of surety was
produced. The enquiry officer recorded that
P.O. (Presenting Officer) sought to frame a
new charge of indemnity bond by the
surety. The enquiry officer refused to give
any acknowledgement to such new charge,
it not being part of the charge-sheet.

33. On the question of indemnity
bond, the reply by the petitioner was "in
view of document P-1 (i.e. copy of the
original policy bond already available with
the Corporation) submitted by P.O. itself,
the lapse in execution of indemnity bond
has no meaning at all." The enquiry officer
held "if policy bond was there, the surety
papers would not have been submitted at
all" but he found it to be not clear as to
when policy bond was submitted and so
observed "I am constrained to accept when
policy bond was available at the time of
settling maturity claim".

34. This above finding does not hold
the document of policy bond bearing
insurance stamp to be bad. This rather
strengthens petitioner's case that maturity
was claimed in respect of genuine bond.
Still further, enquiry officer has not held
indemnity bond and the surety to be forged
or fake document and so charge 1-A cannot
be said to have been proved at all. The only
conclusion in regard to this charge by
enquiry officer is that it was not acceptable
that policy bond was available at the time
of settling maturity claim .

35. Regarding charge 1-B, the enquiry
officer held that "presenting officer (of the
bank) could not find out any difference
particularly in the letter 'K" in its style and
flow from one signature to the other
signature". Moreover, he held that " here is
important to mention that P.O. himself has
admitted that style of signature appears to
be same" Moreover a period of 21 years
has elapsed from the date of first signature
(on the proposal form) and second
signature and naturally both the signatures
cannot match in to to, may be similar
(similarity
on
style)
has
been
acknowledged by P.O. but exact match of
signature was not possible. Thus, charge 1B was also held as not proved.

36. Regarding charge no. 2, the
enquiry officer held that "cheque was
prepared by accounts department favouring
policy holder and forwarding letter carries
address given in he policy bond/discharge
cheque and then sent the dispatch through
moment register." It was Sri V.K.Pandey
(sub staff) who received this cheque
(referred the document as D-5) without any
8 All. Shri Krishna Mishra Vs. L.I.C. of India, Central Office, Mumbai & Ors.
359
authority or any approval from the
competent authority that can at the most be
said
to
have
led
fraudulent
misappropriation for which petitioner could
not be blamed. Thus, charge 2 was also
held as not proved.

37. Regarding charge no. 3, the
enquiry officer held that in March, 2006,
the claim was processed whereas discharge
form no. 3825, and the policy bond was
received only on 16.06.2016 but the
presenting officer of the Corporation failed
to produce any such discharge form which
was claimed to have been presented on
16.06.2006. The enquiry officer further
held that as per presenting officer's own
document, P-16, it bore maturity paid
stamp. Thus, charge no. 3 was also held as
'not proved'.

38. The disciplinary authority while
agreed with the findings of enquiry officer on
charge 1-A disagreed with the findings on
other charges and observed that there was
some difference in signatures which was
noticeable to prove the charge 1-B and then
proceeded to prove charge 2 merely on the
basis that surety form no. 3507 was approved
by the petitioner and indemnity bond also
without verifying credentials of the policy
holder. Thus petitioner was held to be guilty of
facilitating perpetration of fraud and resultant
fraudulent acknowledgement of cheque.

39. Regarding charge no. 3, disciplinary
authority has expressed its view that policy
bond and discharge voucher having been
received on 16.6.2006 the maturity claim
could not have been released in March, 2006
and again negligence was cited on the part of
the petitioner.

40. These above are bare statements
made in the show cause notice to defer with
the findings. The reply of the petitioner has
been noticed in the show cause notice and
then a reference has been made to the
findings on charge no. 1-A of the enquiry
officer to the following effect:

"1. There is no documentary
evidence of the financial status of the surety,
in this case, agent Shri P.K. Gautam.

2.
Indemnity
Bond
though
notarized, has not been executed by the
surety."

41. Regarding charge nos. 2 and 3, no
further documents have been referred to so
as to justify that findings returned by the
enquiry officer were not worth to be
reckoned with. The petitioner's reply as
usual has not been held to be satisfactory to
the show cause notice. Despite statement
made by the petitioner in his reply that both
the cheques were received by the persons
of Corporation whose identity was well
established
and
yet
they
were
not
questioned.

42. Regarding execution of the surety
and signing of the indemnity bond and
discharge voucher, same legal plea was
taken by the petitioner. The disciplinary
authority in its ultimate final order has
though referred to the reply of the
petitioner to the chargesheet but has failed
to reverse the findings of enquiry officer on
the issue of execution of surety and signing
of indemnity bond and discharge voucher
by witnesses who were authorized agents
of the Corporation though belonging to the
other branch, whereas it was fair admission
on the part of presenting officer that there
was no such rule or manual available that
such agent should of the same branch.

43. The disciplinary authority could
not refer to any document by which it could
360 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
be said that the surety was not duly
executed and signed by the authorized
person or that indemnity bond and
discharge vouchers were not signed by the
policy holder and not witnessed by the
authorized persons. Thus reply of petitioner
has been repelled for no justifiable reason.
A mere statement that the officer should
shoulder his share of responsibility very
consciously would not bring home the
charge. The disciplinary authority, instead,
was required to rely upon the rule that such
surety and indemnity bond could not have
been signed by a agent of another branch
and should have held that such surety and
indemnity bond and discharge voucher
were forged documents. The disciplinary
authority was also required to test finding
addressing the question, whether merely for
indemnity bond that was filed, it would
have dis-entitled the policy holder of the
maturity claim. Having not held so, neither
findings of enquiry officer on charge no. 1A nor, of the disciplinary authority on such
charge would be said to have been well
informed with the reasons and supported by
documents and rules.

44. Regarding charge nos. 2 and 3, the
disciplinary authority has not been able to
assign any reason for disagreeing with the
findings of the enquiry officer as to
difference in signatures. The disciplinary
authority has not been able to establish as
to how it finds that the signatures upon the
discharge voucher of the policy claimants
Mr. J.K.Anand were forged. Similarly,
therefore, the question of verification of
indemnity bond and surety would arrive
provided the insured/ policy holder or his
legal heirs and successors come to lodge
complaint that they have not received
payments and that they had not executed
such bond and that agents have virtually
committed fraud. In the absence of any
such finding, petitioner has rightly replied
that the entire papers processed through a
different
department,
namely
claim
department were placed before him for
final approval. He would see the documents
placed and would believe the noting done
by the claim department to approve the
same. Once the approval is accorded, the
duty of payment is of accounts department
and if the cheque had been received by a
third party, petitioner could not have been
held liable for the same.

45. Similarly, again in respect of
charge no. 3 the disciplinary authority
failed to record a findings that report of the
enquiry officer was perverse and that
discharge voucher and policy bond were
received on 16.6.2006 and he had perused
the same and that enquiry officer failed to
notice this document. On this aspect,
regarding charge no. 3, there is no finding
by disciplinary authority. Thus, in my
considered view the disciplinary authority
had disagreed with the findings returned by
the enquiry officere without recording any
independent finding of fact relying upon
any material which may be said to have
gone unnoticed by the enquiry officer or
noticed but was ignored by the enquiry
officer. There being no such finding, the
disciplinary authority was not justified in
taking a different view from that of the
enquiry officer.

46. Coming to the order of the
appellate authority, I find that the appellate
authority has proceeded to hold that the
enquiry officer had held that policy bond
was not available, therefore, in the absence
of policy bond, the correctness of the
indemnity bond was to be verified. The
appellate authority has failed to record any
reason as to what compelled him to hold
that surety and indemnity bonds were
8 All. Shri Krishna Mishra Vs. L.I.C. of India, Central Office, Mumbai & Ors.
361
forged documents and were not duly
executed. It is worth noticing that neither
disciplinary authority, nor the appellate
authority has held that those documents to
be forged documents. Regarding difference
in signatures also the appellate authority
came to conclusion that it had come to
observe that there was difference in
signatures and whether there was slight or
major difference, it was quite noticeable
which should not have been ignored by the
petitioner and had he been vigilant, he
would have arrested the fraud.

47. In my considered view, this above
finding is not tenable for the simple reason
that the bank's presenting officer himself
has found style and flow of the signatures
to
be
same.
What
difference
it
found/noticed to record finding to the
contrary has not been mentioned either in
the order of disciplinary authority or the
decision of the appellate authority that has
affirmed the findings of disciplinary
authority.

44. Supporting the plea of differences
in signatures vide paragraph 45 of the
counter affidavit , it has been averred as
under:

"That the contents of paragraph
no. 51 of the writ petition are vehemently
denied. It is further stated that the charges
were levelled against the petitioner for
having checked the claim payment Vr. No.
998 dated 06.03.2006 for Rs. 64,975 under
Policy No.