Madras High Court
V.Kothandaraman vs The Chairman on 18 July, 2025
2025:MHC:1689
W.P.(MD) No.22132 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On : 11.07.2025
Pronounced On : 18.07.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE
W.P. (MD) No.22132 of 2016
and
W.M.P. (MD) Nos.15849 to 15851 of 2016
V.Kothandaraman,
S/o. P.Vellaisamy
9-13-45, First Floor,
VOC street, Viswanathapuram
Madurai District. ...Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Chairman
Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd,
Central office,Yogakshema
Jeevan Beema Marg,
Mumbai -400021.
2. The Managing Director
Appellate Authority
Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd,
Central office,Yogakshema
Jeevan Beema Marg,
Mumbai -400021.
3. The Executive Director (Personal)
(Disciplinary Authority)
Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd,
Central office, Yogakshema
Jeevan Beema Marg,
Mumbai - 400021.
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 03:21:04 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.22132 of 2016
4. The Manager (OS)
The office of the Senior Divisional Manager
Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd,
Divisional office,
Sellur, Madurai - 625 002. ... Respondents
PRAYER in W.P.:
To issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to
the impugned orders in ERD/SZ/R/06-07/2 dated 28.03.2014 issued by
the Respondent No.3 and the consequential orders in
ERD/SZ/A/2014-15/1 dated 12.12.2014 passed by the Respondent No.2,
the Appellate Authority and in ERD/SZ/M/14-15/7 dated 26.12.2015
passed by the Respondent No.l and quash the same as illegal and
Consequently set aside the punishment of “Reduction by three stages in
the time scale of pay applicable to his cadre and recovery of loss of
Rs.6,29,236/- (Rupees Six lakhs twenty nine thousand two hundred thirty
six only) and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit
and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render Justice.
PRAYER IN W.M.P.(MD) No.15849 of 2016:
To Stay the operation of the impugned orders in ERD/
SZ/R/06-07/2 dated 28.03.2014 issued by the Respondent No.3 and the
consequential orders in ERD/SZ/A/2014-15/1 dated 12.12.2014 passed
by the Respondent No.2, Appellate Authority and the order in
ERD/SZ/M/14-15/7 dated 26.12.2015 passed by the Respondent No.l
pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and thus render justice.
2/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 03:21:04 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.22132 of 2016
PRAYER IN W.M.P.(MD) No.15850 of 2016:
To pass an order of interim direction to the Respondent No.4 to
remit back the amount recovered from the petitioner's monthly salary
pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and thus render justice.
PRAYER IN W.M.P.(MD) No.15851 of 2016:
To pass an order of interim injunction restraining the Respondent
No.4 from implementing the recovery from the petitioner's monthly
salary pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and thus render
justice.
APPEARANCE OF PARTIES:
For Petitioner : Mr. M.M. Iqbal.
For Respondents : Mr.K.Vinoharan
for Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
JUDGMENT
Heard.
2. The petitioner, who was working as a Branch Manager in the
Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC), has filed this writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the issuance of a
writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 28.03.2014 passed by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 03:21:04 pm )
Disciplinary Authority, the appellate order dated 12.12.2014, and the
memorial rejection order dated 26.12.2015. By the impugned orders, the
petitioner was imposed a major penalty of reduction by three stages in
the time scale of pay and directed to remit a sum of Rs.6,29,236/-
towards financial loss allegedly caused to the Corporation in the matter
of ULIP policy transactions during his tenure at the Tenkasi Branch.
3. The disciplinary proceedings commenced with a charge
memorandum dated 22.09.2009, wherein the petitioner was charged with
failure to remit premium amounts collected from policyholders and
lapses in policy issuance procedures. An enquiry was conducted pursuant
to the denial of charges. Initially, a report dated 21.03.2011 found the
charges established except charge No.1(a)2 and 1(b)2. Upon
representation, the matter was remitted for further enquiry. A second
enquiry was conducted, culminating in a report dated 02.05.2013, again
holding the petitioner guilty of several charges. A second show cause
notice was issued and, after considering the petitioner’s reply, the
Disciplinary Authority passed the final order dated 28.03.2014, which
was subsequently confirmed in appeal and memorial.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 03:21:04 pm )
4. The petitioner’s main ground of challenge is that he was denied
a fair opportunity to defend himself due to non-production of a crucial
document, namely, the Control Register maintained at the Branch Office.
It is contended that this register would have shown that all proposal
forms and remittances were duly sent to the Divisional Office and,
therefore, the petitioner cannot be held liable for any financial loss. The
petitioner states that he had repeatedly sought production of this
document during the enquiry and even filed an application under the
Right to Information Act, only to learn that the document was not
available. It is his case that the Control Register formed the bedrock of
his defence and that non-production thereof has vitiated the enquiry and
resulted in grave prejudice. The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner would rely upon the decision in K. Chidambaram v.
Government of Tamil Nadu, reported in 1989 II LLJ 106 (Mad) in
support of his contention that failure to furnish relevant documents
amounts to violation of natural justice.
5. The respondents, on the other hand, have submitted that the
Control Register was not available and that the petitioner, being the
Branch Manager and custodian of the document at the relevant time, had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 03:21:04 pm )
failed to produce it. It is further submitted that the enquiry findings were
not based on the Control Register at all, but on independent materials,
such as proposal forms, acknowledgment receipts, internal audit reports,
statements of LIC staff, and customer grievances. The respondents also
contended that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted fairly and in
accordance with Regulation 39 of the LIC (Staff) Regulations, 1960, and
that the petitioner was given every opportunity to defend himself.
6. The petitioner had not immediately approached this Court after
the enquiry report was served. On the contrary, he submitted his reply to
the show cause notice, participated in the post-enquiry process, and
thereafter filed both a departmental appeal and a memorial. The
authorities concerned, upon due consideration of the materials on record,
rejected both. In this context, it becomes pertinent to consider whether
this Court can interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the
disciplinary authorities and confirmed by the appellate and memorial
authorities.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 03:21:04 pm )
7. The law on this point is well settled. The scope of judicial
review under Article 226 in matters of disciplinary proceedings is
limited. The Court does not act as an appellate forum and cannot
reappreciate evidence or substitute its own view unless the findings are
perverse, based on no evidence, or vitiated by mala fides or violation of
natural justice. In Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, reported in (2015)
2 SCC 610, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that judicial review is
confined to the decision-making process and not the decision itself.
8. The only question that arises, therefore, is whether the non-
supply of the Control Register constitutes such a violation as would
justify interference. In this regard, it is necessary to examine what role, if
any, the Control Register played in the disciplinary process. The
petitioner has contended that the Control Register maintained at the
branch office would have established that the proposal forms and
corresponding premium remittances were duly forwarded to the
Divisional Office, and that its non-production fatally impaired his
defence. However, upon a careful perusal of the enquiry report and the
counter affidavit, it is evident that the Control Register was neither relied
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 03:21:04 pm )
upon nor cited by the Enquiry Officer in arriving at the finding of guilt.
The conclusion of misconduct was drawn from independent materials
such as customer statements, acknowledgments of premium payments,
audit discrepancies, and staff depositions, all of which pointed to
unremitted proposal deposits traceable to the petitioner’s tenure. While
the Control Register may have been relevant from the perspective of the
petitioner’s defence, it cannot be described as a foundational or
indispensable document in the fact-finding process. There is also no
material on record to suggest that its absence caused such prejudice as
would vitiate the enquiry or render the findings perverse. While the
petitioner did request production of the Control Register during the
enquiry and subsequently under RTI, no contemporaneous explanation
was offered as to how the said document, if produced, would have
altered the substance of the findings.
9.The law on this point is well settled. The Supreme Court in
Syndicate Bank v. Venkatesh Gururao Kurati, reported in (2006) 3
SCC 150, held that non-supply of documents which are not relied upon
in the enquiry does not violate the principles of natural justice. Even
when a document is relevant, the burden lies on the delinquent officer to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 03:21:04 pm )
establish actual prejudice. In the present case, the petitioner has not
shown how the Control Register assuming it was available would have
rebutted the overwhelming independent evidence against him. The mere
assertion that it was crucial is insufficient, particularly when the
disciplinary findings are otherwise supported by materials on record and
have been accepted by the Appellate and Memorial Authorities. The
appellate authority, by order dated 12.12.2014, confirmed the findings,
noting that the petitioner, as the officer in overall charge of the branch,
had failed to ensure that the proposal forms and deposits were properly
routed to the Divisional Office and had not submitted any concrete proof
to rebut the allegations.
10. On an overall consideration of the materials and arguments,
this Court finds no grounds to interfere with the impugned orders in
exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The enquiry was conducted in
accordance with procedure, the petitioner was heard at every stage, and
the punishment imposed is based on relevant evidence. The penalty
imposed cannot be said to be disproportionate to the nature of the
misconduct, which involved a substantiated financial loss and breach of
trust. There is no allegation or indication of mala fides, bias, or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 03:21:04 pm )
extraneous consideration in the initiation or conduct of the disciplinary
proceedings. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner had availed the
alternate remedies of appeal and memorial, both of which were
considered on merits and rejected, thereby reinforcing the finality of the
disciplinary action taken.
11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are
closed.
18.07.2025
Index: Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-speaking Order
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
LS
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 03:21:04 pm )
To
1. The Chairman
Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd,
Central office, Yogakshema
Jeevan Beema Marg,
Mumbai - 400021.
2. The Managing Director
Appellate Authority
Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd,
Central office, Yogakshema
Jeevan Beema Marg,
Mumbai -400021.
3. The Executive Director (Personal)
(Disciplinary Authority)
Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd,
Central office,Yogakshema
Jeevan Beema Marg,
Mumbai -400021.
4. The Manager (OS)
The office of the Senior Divisional Manager
Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd,
Divisional office,
Sellur, Madurai - 625 002.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 03:21:04 pm )
DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, J.
LS
Pre-delivery Judgment made in
and
W.M.P. (MD) Nos.15849 to 15851 of 2016
18.07.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 03:21:04 pm )
