MIHIR KUMAR HAZARA CHOUDHURY versus LIFE INSURANCE CORPN. & ANR.

Citation: [2017] 9 S.C.R. 418 · Decided: 11-09-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
[2017] 9 S.C.R. 418 
MIHIR KUMAR HAZARA CHOUDHURY 
v. 
LIFE INSURANCE CORPN. & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 7612 of2009) 
B 
SEPTEMBER 11, 2017 
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] 
Service Law - Dismissal.from service -Assistant of LIC issued 
receipts to policy holders without actually receiving payme/1fs from 
C them - Department proceedings - Employee held guilty of 
misconduct and dismissed from service - Tribunal set aside the 
dismissal order. howeve1; High Court set aside the order of the 
tribunal - On appeal. held: No irregularity in the departmental 
proceedings - LIC department independently proved charges before 
Enquiry Officer and tribunal '- Appellant admitted the charges and 
D only made a prayer for leniency - Furthe1; no defense available to 
employee to say that there was no loss or profit resulting in a case 
when employee acted· without authority - Having regard to the 
seriousness of the charges and no defense being taken by Assistant, 
punishment of dismissal was appropriate - Life Insurance 
E Corporation of India (Stajj) Regulations, 1960 - Reg. 39. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by 
the Division Bench that the charges leveled against the appellant 
stood proved and, in consequence, upheld the appellant's 
F dismissal order holding it to be commensurate with the gravity 
of the charges, arc accepted. Also, the respondent (LIC) was 
able to prove the charges leveled against the appellant 
(employee). The charges can be held proved by mere reading of 
the appellant's reply wherein he, in no uncertain terms, admitted 
that he had issued the disputed premium/special premium 
G receipts to the concerned policyholders and did not receive the 
amount from any of them. All he had said was that such mistake 
occurred on his part due to heavy pressure of workload on him 
and some family circumstances/worries which, was hardly any 
H 
418 
MIHIR KUMAR HAZARA CHOUDHURY v. LIFE INSURANCE 
419· 
CORPN. & ANR. 
defense to the charges; and that he himself requested for taking A 
action against him with leniency. [Paras 21, 22)(425-G-H; 426-A-
B) 
1.2 The Enquiry Officer had recorded a finding of fact that 
the action on the part of'the appellant was willful and with ma/a 
fide intention to perpetrate the fraud on the respondent (LIC) 
B 
for wrongful personal gains. Though, this report was set aside by 
the tribunal but the Division Bench set aside the award of the 
tribunal and upheld the dismissal order. It is for this reason, the 
report of the Enquiry Officer can now be looked into. Though, 
sin~ere attempt was made to attack to challenge the departmental 
proceedings but there is no merit in the same. [Paras 23, 24](426-
C 
B-D] 
1.3 The principle of natural justice was fully observed in 
departmental proceedings wherein the appellant throughout 
participated. No prejudice was noticed having been caused to 
the appellant while participating in the Enquiry proceedings.That D 
apart, despite the appellant virtually admitting the charges, the 
respondent had also adduced the evidence before the Enquiry 
officer and then before the tribunal to prove the charges 
independently, which rightly found acceptance by the Division 
Bench. [Para 25][426-D-E) 
E 
1.4 Keeping in view the reasons set out coupled with the 
findings of the Enquiry Officer, which Division Bench has rightly 
upheld, there is no hesitation in holding that'the charges against 
the appellant were proved not only on the strength of the 
admission of the appellant in his reply but also independently 
F 
with the aid of the evidence led by the LIC before the Enquiry 
Officer and later befor~ the tribunal. [Para 26)(426-F-G) 
1.5 An employee, in discharge of his duties, is required to. 
exercise higher standard of honesty and integrity. In a case where 
he deals with the money of the depositors and customers, it is all 
G 
the more necessary for him to be more cautious in his duties 
because he deals with the money transactions for and on behalf 
of his employer. Every such employee/officer is, therefore, 
required to take all_ pos~ible steps to profect the interest of his 
employer. He must, therefore, discharge his duties with utmost 
H 
420 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 9 S.C.R. 
A sense of integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and must 
ensure that he does nothing, which is unbecoming of an employee/ 
officer. Indeed, good conduct and discipline are inseparable from 
the 

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