Tripura High Court
Life Insurance Corporation Of ... vs Sri Gangesh Chakraborty on 20 April, 2021
Page - 1 of 13
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WA No.2/2018
1. Life Insurance Corporation of India.
A Corporation registered under the Company Act, 1956 having its
Divisional Office at Silchar, Meherpur, P.B. No. 54, P.O. - Silchar,
788015, District - Cachar, Assam (represented by its Senior Divisional
Manager, having his office at Silchar, Meherpur, P.B. No. 54, P.O.
Silchar, 788 015, District - Cachar, Assam).
2. The Agartala Branch Office No.II.,
The Life Insurance Corporation of India, represented by its Branch
Manager having his office at LIC of India, Agartala, Branch No. II ,
T.P. Road, Agartala, P.O. Agartala, 799 001, P.S. West Agartala,
District - West Tripura.
3. The Zonal Manager,
The Life Insurance Corporation of India, Eastern Zonal Office,
Hindustan Building , 4 , Chittaranjan Avenue, Kolkata - 700 072,
West Bengal.
.............. Appellant(s).
Vs.
Sri Gangesh Chakraborty, S/o. Gurukinkar Chakraborty of Ramthakur
Lane, Durga Chowmohani, P.S - West Agartala, District - West Tripura.
.............. Respondent(s).
_B_E_ F_O_R_E_
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. S G CHATTOPADHYAY
For Appellant(s) : Mr. A Bhattcharya, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arijit Bhowmik, Advocate.
Date of hearing & Judgment : 20th April, 2021.
Whether fit for reporting : No.
Page - 2 of 13
J U D G M E N T ( O R A L)
( Akil Kureshi, CJ ).
This appeal is filed by the Life Insurance Corporation(LIC) of
India Ltd. to challenge a judgment of the learned Single Judge dated
31st October 2017 passed in WP(C) No.103/2012.
[2] Brief facts are as under :
The respondent herein original petitioner was working as a
member of sub-staff with LIC and was posted at the relevant time at
Agartala, Branch Office-II under Silchar Divisional Office(DO). A charge
sheet was issued against the petitioner on 12th July, 2004 alleging that
under office order dated 27th June 2021, he was entrusted with the task of
carrying the total amount of daily collection through cash as well as cheque
made under six different cash books of the Agartala Branch Office - II,
Silchar DO, from the LIC's Branch Office to the Indian Bank, Agartala
Branch and to deposit the same with the said Bank daily. Additionally, he
was also entrusted some allied works of the Accounts Department of the
said Branch. As per his official duty, he used to receive daily the previous
day's total collection as per the Cash Book and the Daily Cash Balance
(DCB) Book of Agartala Branch under Silchar DO along with pay-in-slips
written by some other employees of the Branch for depositing exactly the
same amount and the pay-in-slips with the Indian Bank, Agartala Branch,
Page - 3 of 13
immediately. As a token of acknowledgment of receipt of the cash
amounts, cheques and pay-in-slips, he used to put his signature daily in the
space provided in the DCB Book.
It was alleged that the delinquent had deposited a cheque with the
Indian Bank, Agartala Branch, as per the pay-in-slips prepared by some
other employees of LIC with an intention of defrauding the Corporation
and he had deposited lesser amounts of cash as shown in the charge sheet.
According to the LIC, in the process, the petitioner had misappropriated a
total sum of Rs.33,00,000/- in following manner :
"Sl Date Amount taken for Actual amount Amount
No. Lodgment deposited Misappropriated
1. 13-3-02 Rs.15,70,233.00 Rs.10,70,233.00 Rs.5,00,000.00
2. 14-3-02 Rs.10,31,840.20 Rs.05,31,840.20 Rs.5,00,000.00
3. 15-3-02 Rs.08,13,271.10 Rs.04,13,271.10 Rs.4,00,000.00
4. 16-3-02 Rs.08,83,694.90 Rs.05,83,694.90 Rs.3,00,000.00
5. 18-3-02 Rs.04,63,546.70 Rs.03,63,546.70 Rs.1,00,000.00
6. 19-3-02 Rs.10,88,461.90 Rs.06,88,461.90 Rs.4,00,000.00
7. 20-3-02 Rs.07,17,558.70 Rs.04,17,558.70 Rs.3,00,000.00
8. 21-3-02 Rs.07,16,269.00 Rs.06,16,269.00 Rs.1,00,000.00
9. 22-3-02 Rs.06,07,049.00 Rs.04,07,049.00 Rs.2,00,000.00
10. 23-3-02 Rs.07,79,729.50 Rs.06,79,729.50 Rs.1,00,000.00
11. 29-3-02 Rs.12,71,302.00 Rs.08,71,302.00 Rs.4,00,000.00
Total Amount Rs.99,42,956.00 Rs.66,42,956.00 Rs.33,00,000.00"
Page - 4 of 13
It was further alleged that to cover up this fraud, the petitioner
had destroyed the copies of DCB Book and tampered with pay-in-slips for
cash. He thereupon proceeded on casual leave on 1 st April, 2002 but
thereafter remained absent from office unauthorisedly till he was arrested
by the police on 2nd February, 2003 for the charge of misappropriation of
the fund of the Corporation. The petitioner had thus committed misconduct
as per Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960.
[3] The petitioner replied to the charge sheet and denied the charges.
He contended that on the same set of allegations a criminal case was also
instituted against him and the department should suspend the inquiry till the
criminal case is over.
[4] The inquiry officer appointed by the disciplinary authority
conducted the inquiry upon completion of which he submitted a report
dated 22nd January, 2007. He came to the conclusion that the charge of the
misappropriation of the fund of the Corporation was not proved. He,
however, held that the charge of unauthorized absence was proved. In order
to come to the conclusion that the charge of misappropriation was not
proved he had made following observations :
Page - 5 of 13
"Now after due application of mind I, as Enquiry Officer, come
out with the following conclusion and observation etc.
It has been argued that the CSE Sri Gangesh Chakraborty used to
receive the Cash & Cheques for further lodgement with the Indian
Bank, Agartala and on the relevant dates he had made less deposits of
Cash, but in the absence of the copies of the DCBs, the amount
received by the CSE could not be ascertained. Further, the copies of
the set of collection books (as referred to by the Presenting Officer)
submitted by the Presenting Officer as one of the exhibits (Exhibit-2)
do not contain the cash collection figures of all the relevant dates, and
thus the cash collection figures for some dates could not be verified by
referring to the records relating to cash collections. Here it can be
relevantly made mention of that out of 9(nine) sheets of exhibit-2,
only one sheet i.e. the 1st one seems to be a copy of LIC's own records
but again some of the sheets do contain the figures of actual cash
collection(as mentioned) of some of the relevant dates while
containing the mentioned Bank Deposit (Cash lodgement) figures of
all the relevant dates. In the circumstances, no clear-cut inference can
be drawn that the CSE Sri G Chakraboty had, for his personal gains,
deposited less amounts of cash in the Bank. However, circumstantial
evidences give pointed indications that the CSE Sri G Chakraborty
had for his personal gains, misappropriated the moneys but in the
absence of cash collection figures of all the relevant dates to be
verified from convincing records, it can be said that the charge with
regard to misappropriation of LIC's money could not be conclusively
proved. I, therefore, say that the charge has not been proved."
[5] According to the inquiry officer thus, there was circumstantial
evidence pointing to the involvement of the petitioner of misappropriation
of the funds of the Corporation for his personal gains. He, however, held
Page - 6 of 13
the charge not proved on the ground that in absence of cash collection
figures of all relevant dates which can be verified from the convincing
records, the charge of misappropriation of the funds of the LIC cannot be
conclusively proved.
[6] The disciplinary authority did not accept the findings of the
inquiry officer and, therefore, issued a show cause notice recording his
disagreement with the findings of the inquiry officer and citing tentative
reasons for the same. He served a copy of such show cause notice dated
10th July, 2007 to the petitioner calling upon him to respond. In such notice,
the disciplinary authority had cited the materials collected by the police in
course of the investigation. He recorded that the delinquent was absconding
from duty. The case was after initial investigation handed over to CID
Branch. A publication of missing person's information was issued in the
daily newspaper to search out the delinquent. He was finally arrested on 2 nd
February, 2003 from a hotel in Agartala where he stayed in a fake name.
He was wearing a wig in order to conceal his identity and to evade arrest.
The disciplinary authority recorded that in the final report, the police had
pointed out that the delinquent had deposited a total amount of
Rs.21,00,000/- in his name and in the name of one Arindam Goswami in
the Post Office in Kolkata in Monthly Income Scheme(MIS). The police
Page - 7 of 13
had also seized the original application forms for opening the accounts in
the post offices containing the signatures and handwriting of the depositors
namely, the delinquent and Arindam Goswami as well as the pay-in-slips in
respect of the deposits of lesser amount with the Bank of India. The
signatures and handwriting of the delinquent were also sent for comparison
and expert's opinion. The disciplinary authority also recorded that the date
wise cash collection of the concerned branch for the period between 13th
March, 2002 to 29th March, 2002 which were received by the delinquent
for depositing in the Bank and the actual amount deposited by him with the
Bank allowing him to misappropriate the difference were also mentioned in
the final police report. The disciplinary authority referred to the stand taken
by the delinquent during the course of inquiry suggesting that he was not
prepared to participate in the inquiry on the ground that a criminal case was
pending against him. The disciplinary authority also referred to the
statements of the departmental witnesses recorded during the course of
inquiry such as one Sri M Koloi, Administrative Officer of the Agartala
Branch Office-II, one Smt. Alo Rani Das, Assistant(Finance & Accounts)
of Agartala Branch Office-II who had stated that the delinquent was in the
Finance and Accounts Department who used to receive cash and cheques
and then deposit the same in the Bank.
Page - 8 of 13
[7] The delinquent replied to the said show cause notice under a
detailed communication dated 26th August, 2007 taking various pleas of
principles of natural justice not being followed during the course of the
inquiry and of his innocence in absence of any evidence on record.
[8] The disciplinary authority, however, did not accept such defences
and passed an order dated 28th August, 2007 imposing punishment of
dismissal from service and ordering recovery of loss of Rs.33,00,000/-
from the delinquent.
[9] The petitioner thereupon filed departmental appeal before the
appellate authority. Appellate authority dismissed the appeal by an order
dated 25th August, 2008. In such order, he dealt with every ground raised
by the petitioner in appeal. He thereupon concluded as under :
"With my aforesaid observations and conclusion, I observe that
the Appellant has not brought out any cogent points warranting any
modification in the penalties of dismissal from service and recovery of
Rs.33,00,000.00(Rupees thirty three lacs) only as imposed by the
Disciplinary Authority, which is in my view commensurate with the
gravity of misconduct of which he is found guilty.
The appeal dated 27.11.2007 preferred by Shri Gangesh
Chakrborty therefore be and is hereby rejected."
Page - 9 of 13
[10] The petitioner thereupon filed the writ petition [WP(C)
No.103/2012] before this Court. The learned Single Judge by the impugned
judgment allowed the petition mainly on the grounds that the contents of
the police report could not have been relied upon without examining the
investigating officer. It was observed that the record produced before the
Court did not indicate that a copy of the police report was part of the
inquiry proceedings. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that the
witnesses examined by the department did not have any personal
knowledge about the misappropriation. The learned Judge, therefore, found
that the charge of misappropriation of the funds of the Corporation was
wrongly held to have been proved, however, with respect to unauthorized
absence no interference was found necessary. The punishment of dismissal
with consequential directions for recovery of the loss caused to the
Corporation was set aside. The petitioner would be re-instated in service.
This judgment, the Corporation has challenged in this appeal.
[11] Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused
documents on record, we find that the judgment of the learned Single Judge
is not sustainable. During the course of inquiry, the department had
established that the petitioner was posted in the Finance and Accounts
Department and was entrusted with the task of receiving amounts through
Page - 10 of 13
cheques as well as cash and was entrusted with the task of filling up pay-in-
slips and to deposit entire amount in the Bank of India where the
Corporation had an account. The shortfall in the deposits with the Bank as
compared to the amounts received by the Corporation was also established.
Even the inquiry officer, as we have noted, came to the conclusion that the
circumstantial evidence points to the guilt of the delinquent. However, he
exonerated the delinquent only on the ground that in absence of cash
collection figures of all relevant dates and verification of the same from
record the charge of misappropriation of the LIC funds cannot be said to
have been proved. This was a strange and a defective logic. In the
departmental inquiry, unlike in criminal cases, the proof beyond reasonable
doubt is never insisted, more importantly, as long as there was
circumstantial evidence to hold the charge against the delinquent proved,
the inquiry officer could not have exonerated him on the flimsy ground that
each and every detail of money receipt was not brought on record by the
department. We may also recall that the allegation against the petitioner
was that in order to cover up this large scale fraud he had also manipulated
the records and tampered with the pay-in-slip entries.
[12] It was in this background that the disciplinary authority issued a
disagreement notice recording his tentative reasons for not accepting the
Page - 11 of 13
findings of the inquiry officer. As noted, he had placed heavy reliance on
the final report submitted by the police upon completion of the
investigation. He had referred to the petitioner going underground for
months on end after the fraud was detected, that a public notice for finding
out the petitioner was issued by the CID Branch, that the petitioner was
finally arrested several months later when he was in disguise and staying in
a city hotel in a fictitious name. He also relied on the police report which
suggested that the petitioner and another person had deposited a sum of
Rs.22,00,000/- in Post Office, branch in Kolkata, in Monthly Income
Scheme(MIS). The account opening form contained the signature and
handwritings of the petitioner. The disciplinary authority had also relied on
the evidence of the witnesses examined during the course of the inquiry
who of course may not have personal knowledge about the
misappropriation committed by the petitioner, nevertheless had provided
relevant information about his posting, the duties assigned to him and the
fact that a total of Rs.33,00,000/- was deposited short in the Bank account
of the Corporation.
[13] Thus, the entire issue was based on consideration of facts and
assessment of evidence on record. The disciplinary authority and the
appellate authority had independently applied their minds and come to
Page - 12 of 13
factual findings which could not have been lightly disturbed in a writ
petition. Through series of judgments, the Supreme Court has held that the
findings arrived at by the disciplinary authority in the course of validly
constituted departmental inquiry cannot be interfered in a writ jurisdiction
unless these findings are shown to be perverse in the sense that there is no
evidence supporting such findings It is equally well-settled that in the curse
of the departmental proceedings strict laws of Evidence Act would not be
applicable. The requirement of examining the investigating officer before
the police report can be referred to and relied upon as imposed by the
learned Single Judge, therefore, was not correct. Further, the inquiry officer
in his report has referred to the final police report as well as CID reports.
The observation of the learned Single Judge that these documents did not
form part of the inquiry proceedings is also not correct.
[14] The petitioner was facing serious charges of defalcation of public
funds to the tune of Rs.33,00,000/-. The evidence against him suggested
that he was entrusted with the duty of receiving cheque and cash amounts
and depositing the same in the account of the Corporation in a nearby
Bank. The evidence also suggested that in depositing such collection for 11
days there was a shortfall of Rs.33,00,000/-. The petitioner did not offer
any explanation for such shortfall. He could not have taken the stand of
Page - 13 of 13
total silence as in case of criminal proceedings requiring the department to
prove all charges against him on the enveil of proof beyond reasonable
doubt. The department established the charge through preponderance of
probabilities through direct and circumstantial evidence.
In the result, impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is set
aside. Appeal is allowed and disposed of. Pending application(s), if any,
also stands disposed of.
( S G CHATTOPADHYAY, J ) ( AKIL KURESHI, CJ )
Sukehendu
