DIWAN SINGH Vs. LIC OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was posted as permanent cashier of Life Insurance Corporation of India, branch office, Bilaspur, district Rampur (in brief corporation). On 5.12.90 a complaint was made by one Shri Anil Kumar Gupta, an agent of policyholder No. 250261734 of one Shri Bhoj Raj Singh that he has not received the commission on the premium of Rs. 533 deposited on 13.8.90. The corporation appears to have made some inquiries and the petitioner was charge-sheeted on 29.4.91. Two charges were framed against him, one for temporary embezzlement of Rs. 533 realised from the policyholder on 13.8.90 but deposited on 28.11.90 and the second, inserting an entry in the carbon copy of fly sheet No. 008.

(2.) In reply, it was not denied that receipt for Rs. 533 was made on 13.8.90 but since the policyholder was short of money, the receipt was not issued to him nor any entry in any other record was made. The petitioner stated that the entire amount was deposited by the policyholder on 28.11.90. He denied any overwriting in the carbon copy of Sheet No. 008.

(3.) The petitioner examined the policyhoider, father of the agent and himself as witnesses. The policyholder stated that he went to deposit the amount in August and receipt was also made but he could not deposit the amount as it was short and he deposited the amount in November. The father of the agent stated that the policybolder after the complaint met him and informed that he deposited the amount in November 1990 only. The inquiry officer held that the statements of witnesses supported petitioner's claim and created question mark against charge No. 1. But then he proceeded to examine the circumstances and drew adverse inference against the petitioner mainly because there was conflict in the complaint made by the agent and the statement made by his father before him and the policyholder's statement was not the same as was made by him during inquiry on 3.6.91. The inquiry officer drew adverse inference because when the amount was deposited on 28.11.90, then the receipt should have been of November and not August. The inquiry officer held that no receipt of delayed payment was made. On the second charge, he placed reliance on report of handwriting expert who was not examined by him. The inquiry officer submitted his report. And the disciplinary authority by his order dated 21.1.92 removed the petitioner from service. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 22,2.92. The orders of removal as well as appellate order have been challenged in instant writ petition.