DIWAN SINGH versus LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2015] 1 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 05-01-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAMAJIT SEN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 1 S.C.R. 1 
DIWAN SINGH 
v. 
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND 
OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 3655 of 2010) 
JANUARY 5, 2015 
[VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
Service Law: Compulsory retirement - Misappropriation 
A 
B 
of funds - Deposit of Rs: 533 by policy holder with the C 
appellant-cashier on 13. 8. 1990 but the amount not deposited 
with UC - Temporary embezzlement of Rs. 5331- for the period 
13.08.1990 to 27.11.1990 and forging entry of Rs. 5331- in the 
carbon copy of ledger sheet dated 13.08.1990 by the cashier 
- Order of removal from service - High Court substituting 
D 
punishment of compulsory retirement in place of removal 
from service - On appeal, held: In view of nature of charge of 
which the cashier was found guilty, the punishment of 
compulsory retirement cannot be said to be harsh and 
disproportionate - In such matters, no sympathy can be 
E 
shown by the courts. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The plea of the appellant was that the amount 
could not be credited by him on 13.8.1990 as the cash 
F 
actually paid by the policy holder on that day was short 
and, as such the act on the part of the appellant was 
bonafide. This explanation was not convincing, as the 
cashier would not have issued a receipt without counting 
the cash at the counter. Secondly, had the act on the part G 
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 
1 
H 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 
A such, the finding of the enquiry officer holding the 
appellant guilty cannot be said to be against the evidence 
on record. The punishment cannot be said 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 
B present case. In such matters no sympathy should be 
shown by the Courts. The amount misappropriated may 
. Ile small or large; it is the act of misappropriation that is 
relevant. [Paras 5, 6, 7 and 11] [4-G; 5-A-B, D; 7-B] 
Divisional Controller, N. E. K. R. TC v. M. Amaresh (2006) 
C 6 SCC 187: 2006 (3) Suppl. SCR 585; Divisional Controller, 
KSRTC (NWKRTC) v. A. T. Mane (2005) 3 sec 254; 
Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal and Anr. v. State of 
Maharashtra (2013) 4 SCC 642:2013 (4) SCR 767; 
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. v. 
D Bajrang Lal (2014) 4 SCC 693: 2014 (3) _SCR 782 ; 
Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh v. Krishnan Behari and 
Ors. (1996) 2 sec 714:1996 (2) SCR 827 - relied on. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Case Law Reference : 
2006 (3) Suppl. SCR 585 Relied on 
Para 8 
(2005) 3 sec 254 
Relied on 
Para 9 
2013 (4) SCR 767 
Relied on 
Para 10 
2014 (3) SCR 782 
Relied on 
Para 11 
1996 (2) SCR 827 
Relied on 
Para 11 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
3655 of 2010. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27-08-2009 of the 
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 
1167 of 1999. 
Gaurav Agrawal for the Appellant. 
DIWAN SINGH v. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION 
3 
OF !NOIA 
Kailash Vasdev, A.V. Rangam, Buddy A. Ranganadhan for 
A 
the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. 1. 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 S!Jbstituted the 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. 
B 
c 
3. Briefly stated, the facts are that the appellant was a 
cashier with Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter 
referred to as "UC") and posted at Bilaspur, District Rampur D 
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 
E 
appellant. It appears that when the UC 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 
F 
entry was made in ledger sheet on back date. In connection

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.