M MUNUSAMY Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL; SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, viz., A.Munusamy, an agent under second respondent with effect from 1988 and appointed as Development Officer in 1995 at Chengalpet Branch Office was alleged of having introduced two proposals on the life of one Mr.Ravindran on 30.03.2002 through Agent T.Sivaraman and A.Thirunavukarasu culminating in policy Nos.713510618 and 713510617 while R.Ravindran had died on 20.10.2001; that he had given his addresses in both the policies; that he had given moral hazard report in respect of the identity of the insurer; that he attempted to revive the policies relating to R.Ravindran on 04.07.2002 by witnessing declaration of good health of deceased Ravindran and that he attempted to derive fraudulent benefits influencing the agents and to collude. Due to his fraudulent act, he was suspended on 14.08.2004. To show cause notice dated 24.08.2004, he gave explanation denying the allegations. He was charge sheeted on 07.01.2005 to which also he gave explanation. After a farce enquiry, a report was drawn to which, he offered comments being perverse. Show cause notice dated 17.04.2006 was issued proposing punishment of removal. He replied on 27.04.2006 disowning liability to be punished but punishment was imposed on 30.06.2006. Appeal was rejected on 16.08.2006 in a summary manner. A memorial before the Chairman was also rejected on 05.06.2007. The two policies were canvassed and introduced by agents T.Sivaraman and A.Thirunavukarasu. The agents had completed the medical examination of R.Ravindran on 30.02.2002 through Dr.Anand and had handed over the proposal and he countersigned the Agent Confidential Report. The petitioner acted bonafidely on the basis of representation of the Agents. LIC had obtained letter to the effect that the proposals were not canvassed by the agents and thereafter introduced to the petitioner. It also availed the services of the agents against the petitioner which is foisted, showing hollowness of the charges. Agent Sivaraman had given false evidence as could be found established in the enquiry and also that he knew R.Ravindran. The Agent Tirunavukarasu had been doing the agency work through his father himself not knowing the rules. No credence can be given to his evidence also. Tirunavukarasu attested the Agent Confidential Report. Petitioner had only witnessed the signature of the person who gave the policies to the petitioner's agent with no malafide intention. It was out of good faith placed on the agent. It was the agents who were to be proceeded against. The petitioner had been developing the business year to year with 42 agents canvassing the business under him. Proposals in respect of a dead person were not within his knowledge. The finding is without evidence only relying on witnesses, parties to the fraud. The enquiry is a farce and in violation of principles of natural justice. The punishment is totally unjustified and grossly illegal. There is no loss to the Corporation nor gain to the petitioner. The punishment is grossly disproportionate and is liable to be interfered with under Section 11A of the ID Act. He has not been gainfully employed now. The complainant Jayanthi is not a witness. It deliberately misdirected the Tribunal that the nature of job of the petitioner was supervisory not coming within the definition of workman as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

(2.) The respondents / Management have filed a counter statement and resisted the said case. Mrs.Jayanthi, wife of Late R.Ravindran gave a complaint alleging the petitioner to have arranged for issuing policies in the name of her deceased husband. It is on the basis of two moral hazard reports certified by the petitioner as to satisfaction about the identity of the parties and on the basis of independent enquiries that the two proposals were completed under Policy No.713510618, the BOC Nos.13827, dated 30.03.2002 and BOC No.9584 dated 31.01.2002 in the names of Sri Sivaraman and Munusamy. The petitioner's policy was adjusted, towards the first premium. He was informed to have acted prejudicially to good conduct and to have committed breach of Regulation 21 and 24 read with Regulation-39(1) of LIC of India (Staff Regulations, 1960). The Agent Tirunavukarasu gave evidence that he has not canvassed or signed in the Agent's Confidential Report. The signature was found not to tally as deposed by him. Agent Sivaraman signed in the proposal and ACR at the instance of the petitioner but not in the medical report. He also did not accompany the life assured person for medical examination. His signature in the medical report also did not tally, which findings were not contested by the petitioner. Agents were not examined as Corporation witnesses. His malafide intention to defraud the Corporation is evident. He was given full opportunity in the enquiry. There is no violation of principles of natural justice. The punishment is not disproportionate. He being a Supervisory Officer on the Agent is not a workman under the ID Act. ID Act and will not prevail upon provisions of LIC. The claim has to be dismissed.

(3.) After considering both sides averments, the Tribunal had framed two issues, viz.,