Nabin Kumar Sarma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors - Citation 122131 - Court Judgment

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Nabin Kumar Sarma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors - Citation 122131 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '122131',
			'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulation 7(2) and 39; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 311(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Rule No. 1 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D.C. Sarma and A.K. Sharma, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'B.R. Dey, K.K. Nandhi, H. Talukdar and A.K. Choudhary, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Guwahati',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-06-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'P.G. Agarwal, J.',
			'judgement' => ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> P.G. Agarwal, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => ' 
 P.G. Agarwal, J. 
 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri J',
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
			'sub' => ';Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '122131',
		(int) 1 => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Nabin Kumar Sarma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors - Citation 122131 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '122131',
		'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulation 7(2) and 39; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 311(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Rule No. 1 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D.C. Sarma and A.K. Sharma, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'B.R. Dey, K.K. Nandhi, H. Talukdar and A.K. Choudhary, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Guwahati',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-06-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'P.G. Agarwal, J.',
		'judgement' => ' </p><p> P.G. Agarwal, J. </p><p> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.</p><p> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.</p><p> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.</p><p> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.</p><p> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :</p><p> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.</p><p> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' </p><p> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :</p><p> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'</p><p> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 </p><p> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :</p><p> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'</p><p> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :</p><p> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :</p><p> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.</p><p> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :</p><p> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' </p><p> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.</p><p> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :</p><p> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'</p><p> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.</p><p> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.</p><p> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.</p><p> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).</p><p> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.</p><p> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => ' 
 P.G. Agarwal, J. 
 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri J',
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
		'sub' => ';Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '122131',
	(int) 1 => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/122131/nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '',
	(int) 1 => '<p> P.G. Agarwal, J. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' ',
	(int) 10 => '<p> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :',
	(int) 11 => '<p> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :',
	(int) 14 => '<p> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :',
	(int) 19 => '<p> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' ',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :',
	(int) 22 => '<p> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.',
	(int) 29 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 30
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Nabin Kumar Sarma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors - Citation 122131 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '122131',
			'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulation 7(2) and 39; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 311(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Rule No. 1 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D.C. Sarma and A.K. Sharma, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'B.R. Dey, K.K. Nandhi, H. Talukdar and A.K. Choudhary, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Guwahati',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-06-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'P.G. Agarwal, J.',
			'judgement' => ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> P.G. Agarwal, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => ' 
 P.G. Agarwal, J. 
 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri J',
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
			'sub' => ';Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '122131',
		(int) 1 => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Nabin Kumar Sarma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors - Citation 122131 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '122131',
		'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulation 7(2) and 39; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 311(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Rule No. 1 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D.C. Sarma and A.K. Sharma, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'B.R. Dey, K.K. Nandhi, H. Talukdar and A.K. Choudhary, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Guwahati',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-06-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'P.G. Agarwal, J.',
		'judgement' => ' </p><p> P.G. Agarwal, J. </p><p> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.</p><p> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.</p><p> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.</p><p> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.</p><p> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :</p><p> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.</p><p> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' </p><p> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :</p><p> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'</p><p> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 </p><p> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :</p><p> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'</p><p> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :</p><p> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :</p><p> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.</p><p> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :</p><p> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' </p><p> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.</p><p> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :</p><p> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'</p><p> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.</p><p> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.</p><p> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.</p><p> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).</p><p> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.</p><p> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => ' 
 P.G. Agarwal, J. 
 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri J',
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
		'sub' => ';Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '122131',
	(int) 1 => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/122131/nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '',
	(int) 1 => '<p> P.G. Agarwal, J. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' ',
	(int) 10 => '<p> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :',
	(int) 11 => '<p> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :',
	(int) 14 => '<p> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :',
	(int) 19 => '<p> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' ',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :',
	(int) 22 => '<p> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.',
	(int) 29 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 30
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

P.G. Agarwal, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Nabin Kumar Sarma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors - Citation 122131 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '122131',
			'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulation 7(2) and 39; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 311(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Rule No. 1 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D.C. Sarma and A.K. Sharma, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'B.R. Dey, K.K. Nandhi, H. Talukdar and A.K. Choudhary, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Guwahati',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-06-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'P.G. Agarwal, J.',
			'judgement' => ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> P.G. Agarwal, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => ' 
 P.G. Agarwal, J. 
 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri J',
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
			'sub' => ';Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '122131',
		(int) 1 => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Nabin Kumar Sarma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors - Citation 122131 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '122131',
		'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulation 7(2) and 39; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 311(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Rule No. 1 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D.C. Sarma and A.K. Sharma, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'B.R. Dey, K.K. Nandhi, H. Talukdar and A.K. Choudhary, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Guwahati',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-06-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'P.G. Agarwal, J.',
		'judgement' => ' </p><p> P.G. Agarwal, J. </p><p> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.</p><p> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.</p><p> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.</p><p> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.</p><p> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :</p><p> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.</p><p> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' </p><p> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :</p><p> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'</p><p> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 </p><p> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :</p><p> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'</p><p> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :</p><p> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :</p><p> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.</p><p> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :</p><p> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' </p><p> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.</p><p> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :</p><p> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'</p><p> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.</p><p> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.</p><p> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.</p><p> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).</p><p> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.</p><p> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => ' 
 P.G. Agarwal, J. 
 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri J',
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
		'sub' => ';Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '122131',
	(int) 1 => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/122131/nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '',
	(int) 1 => '<p> P.G. Agarwal, J. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' ',
	(int) 10 => '<p> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :',
	(int) 11 => '<p> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :',
	(int) 14 => '<p> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :',
	(int) 19 => '<p> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' ',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :',
	(int) 22 => '<p> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.',
	(int) 29 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 30
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Nabin Kumar Sarma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors - Citation 122131 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '122131',
			'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulation 7(2) and 39; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 311(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Rule No. 1 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D.C. Sarma and A.K. Sharma, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'B.R. Dey, K.K. Nandhi, H. Talukdar and A.K. Choudhary, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Guwahati',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-06-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'P.G. Agarwal, J.',
			'judgement' => ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> P.G. Agarwal, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => ' 
 P.G. Agarwal, J. 
 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri J',
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
			'sub' => ';Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '122131',
		(int) 1 => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Nabin Kumar Sarma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors - Citation 122131 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '122131',
		'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulation 7(2) and 39; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 311(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Rule No. 1 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D.C. Sarma and A.K. Sharma, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'B.R. Dey, K.K. Nandhi, H. Talukdar and A.K. Choudhary, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Guwahati',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-06-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'P.G. Agarwal, J.',
		'judgement' => ' </p><p> P.G. Agarwal, J. </p><p> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.</p><p> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.</p><p> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.</p><p> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.</p><p> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :</p><p> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.</p><p> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' </p><p> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :</p><p> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'</p><p> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 </p><p> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :</p><p> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'</p><p> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :</p><p> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :</p><p> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.</p><p> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :</p><p> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' </p><p> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.</p><p> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :</p><p> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'</p><p> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.</p><p> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.</p><p> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.</p><p> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).</p><p> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.</p><p> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => ' 
 P.G. Agarwal, J. 
 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri J',
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
		'sub' => ';Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '122131',
	(int) 1 => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/122131/nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '',
	(int) 1 => '<p> P.G. Agarwal, J. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' ',
	(int) 10 => '<p> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :',
	(int) 11 => '<p> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :',
	(int) 14 => '<p> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :',
	(int) 19 => '<p> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' ',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :',
	(int) 22 => '<p> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.',
	(int) 29 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 30
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Nabin Kumar Sarma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors - Citation 122131 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '122131',
			'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulation 7(2) and 39; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 311(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Rule No. 1 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D.C. Sarma and A.K. Sharma, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'B.R. Dey, K.K. Nandhi, H. Talukdar and A.K. Choudhary, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Guwahati',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-06-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'P.G. Agarwal, J.',
			'judgement' => ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> P.G. Agarwal, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => ' 
 P.G. Agarwal, J. 
 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri J',
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
			'sub' => ';Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '122131',
		(int) 1 => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Nabin Kumar Sarma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors - Citation 122131 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '122131',
		'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulation 7(2) and 39; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 311(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Rule No. 1 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D.C. Sarma and A.K. Sharma, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'B.R. Dey, K.K. Nandhi, H. Talukdar and A.K. Choudhary, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Guwahati',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-06-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'P.G. Agarwal, J.',
		'judgement' => ' </p><p> P.G. Agarwal, J. </p><p> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.</p><p> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.</p><p> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.</p><p> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.</p><p> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :</p><p> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.</p><p> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' </p><p> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :</p><p> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'</p><p> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 </p><p> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :</p><p> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'</p><p> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :</p><p> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :</p><p> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.</p><p> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :</p><p> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' </p><p> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.</p><p> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :</p><p> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'</p><p> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.</p><p> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.</p><p> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.</p><p> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).</p><p> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.</p><p> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => ' 
 P.G. Agarwal, J. 
 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri J',
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
		'sub' => ';Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '122131',
	(int) 1 => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/122131/nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '',
	(int) 1 => '<p> P.G. Agarwal, J. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' ',
	(int) 10 => '<p> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :',
	(int) 11 => '<p> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :',
	(int) 14 => '<p> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :',
	(int) 19 => '<p> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' ',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :',
	(int) 22 => '<p> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.',
	(int) 29 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 30
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Nabin Kumar Sarma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors - Citation 122131 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '122131',
			'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulation 7(2) and 39; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 311(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Rule No. 1 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D.C. Sarma and A.K. Sharma, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'B.R. Dey, K.K. Nandhi, H. Talukdar and A.K. Choudhary, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Guwahati',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-06-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'P.G. Agarwal, J.',
			'judgement' => ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> P.G. Agarwal, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => ' 
 P.G. Agarwal, J. 
 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri J',
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
			'sub' => ';Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '122131',
		(int) 1 => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Nabin Kumar Sarma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors - Citation 122131 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '122131',
		'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulation 7(2) and 39; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 311(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Rule No. 1 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D.C. Sarma and A.K. Sharma, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'B.R. Dey, K.K. Nandhi, H. Talukdar and A.K. Choudhary, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Guwahati',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-06-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'P.G. Agarwal, J.',
		'judgement' => ' </p><p> P.G. Agarwal, J. </p><p> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.</p><p> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.</p><p> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.</p><p> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.</p><p> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :</p><p> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.</p><p> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' </p><p> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :</p><p> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'</p><p> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 </p><p> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :</p><p> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'</p><p> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :</p><p> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :</p><p> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.</p><p> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :</p><p> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' </p><p> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.</p><p> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :</p><p> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'</p><p> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.</p><p> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.</p><p> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.</p><p> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).</p><p> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.</p><p> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => ' 
 P.G. Agarwal, J. 
 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri J',
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
		'sub' => ';Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '122131',
	(int) 1 => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/122131/nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '',
	(int) 1 => '<p> P.G. Agarwal, J. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' ',
	(int) 10 => '<p> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :',
	(int) 11 => '<p> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :',
	(int) 14 => '<p> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :',
	(int) 19 => '<p> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' ',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :',
	(int) 22 => '<p> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.',
	(int) 29 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 30
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Nabin Kumar Sarma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors - Citation 122131 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '122131',
			'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulation 7(2) and 39; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 311(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Rule No. 1 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D.C. Sarma and A.K. Sharma, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'B.R. Dey, K.K. Nandhi, H. Talukdar and A.K. Choudhary, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Guwahati',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-06-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'P.G. Agarwal, J.',
			'judgement' => ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> P.G. Agarwal, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => ' 
 P.G. Agarwal, J. 
 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri J',
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
			'sub' => ';Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '122131',
		(int) 1 => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Nabin Kumar Sarma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors - Citation 122131 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '122131',
		'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulation 7(2) and 39; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 311(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Rule No. 1 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D.C. Sarma and A.K. Sharma, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'B.R. Dey, K.K. Nandhi, H. Talukdar and A.K. Choudhary, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Guwahati',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-06-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'P.G. Agarwal, J.',
		'judgement' => ' </p><p> P.G. Agarwal, J. </p><p> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.</p><p> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.</p><p> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.</p><p> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.</p><p> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :</p><p> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.</p><p> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' </p><p> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :</p><p> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'</p><p> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 </p><p> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :</p><p> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'</p><p> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :</p><p> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :</p><p> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.</p><p> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :</p><p> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' </p><p> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.</p><p> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :</p><p> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'</p><p> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.</p><p> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.</p><p> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.</p><p> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).</p><p> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.</p><p> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => ' 
 P.G. Agarwal, J. 
 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri J',
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
		'sub' => ';Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '122131',
	(int) 1 => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/122131/nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '',
	(int) 1 => '<p> P.G. Agarwal, J. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' ',
	(int) 10 => '<p> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :',
	(int) 11 => '<p> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :',
	(int) 14 => '<p> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :',
	(int) 19 => '<p> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' ',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :',
	(int) 22 => '<p> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.',
	(int) 29 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 30
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Nabin Kumar Sarma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors - Citation 122131 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '122131',
			'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulation 7(2) and 39; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 311(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Rule No. 1 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D.C. Sarma and A.K. Sharma, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'B.R. Dey, K.K. Nandhi, H. Talukdar and A.K. Choudhary, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Guwahati',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-06-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'P.G. Agarwal, J.',
			'judgement' => ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> P.G. Agarwal, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => ' 
 P.G. Agarwal, J. 
 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri J',
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
			'sub' => ';Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '122131',
		(int) 1 => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Nabin Kumar Sarma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors - Citation 122131 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '122131',
		'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulation 7(2) and 39; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 311(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Rule No. 1 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D.C. Sarma and A.K. Sharma, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'B.R. Dey, K.K. Nandhi, H. Talukdar and A.K. Choudhary, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Guwahati',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-06-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'P.G. Agarwal, J.',
		'judgement' => ' </p><p> P.G. Agarwal, J. </p><p> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.</p><p> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.</p><p> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.</p><p> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.</p><p> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :</p><p> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.</p><p> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' </p><p> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :</p><p> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'</p><p> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 </p><p> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :</p><p> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'</p><p> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :</p><p> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :</p><p> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.</p><p> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :</p><p> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' </p><p> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.</p><p> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :</p><p> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'</p><p> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.</p><p> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.</p><p> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.</p><p> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).</p><p> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.</p><p> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => ' 
 P.G. Agarwal, J. 
 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri J',
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
		'sub' => ';Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '122131',
	(int) 1 => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/122131/nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '',
	(int) 1 => '<p> P.G. Agarwal, J. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' ',
	(int) 10 => '<p> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :',
	(int) 11 => '<p> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :',
	(int) 14 => '<p> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :',
	(int) 19 => '<p> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' ',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :',
	(int) 22 => '<p> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.',
	(int) 29 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 30
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Nabin Kumar Sarma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors - Citation 122131 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '122131',
			'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulation 7(2) and 39; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 311(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Rule No. 1 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D.C. Sarma and A.K. Sharma, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'B.R. Dey, K.K. Nandhi, H. Talukdar and A.K. Choudhary, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Guwahati',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-06-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'P.G. Agarwal, J.',
			'judgement' => ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> P.G. Agarwal, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => ' 
 P.G. Agarwal, J. 
 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri J',
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
			'sub' => ';Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '122131',
		(int) 1 => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Nabin Kumar Sarma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors - Citation 122131 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '122131',
		'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulation 7(2) and 39; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 311(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Rule No. 1 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D.C. Sarma and A.K. Sharma, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'B.R. Dey, K.K. Nandhi, H. Talukdar and A.K. Choudhary, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Guwahati',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-06-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'P.G. Agarwal, J.',
		'judgement' => ' </p><p> P.G. Agarwal, J. </p><p> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.</p><p> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.</p><p> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.</p><p> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.</p><p> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :</p><p> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.</p><p> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' </p><p> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :</p><p> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'</p><p> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 </p><p> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :</p><p> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'</p><p> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :</p><p> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :</p><p> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.</p><p> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :</p><p> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' </p><p> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.</p><p> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :</p><p> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'</p><p> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.</p><p> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.</p><p> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.</p><p> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).</p><p> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.</p><p> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => ' 
 P.G. Agarwal, J. 
 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri J',
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
		'sub' => ';Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '122131',
	(int) 1 => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/122131/nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '',
	(int) 1 => '<p> P.G. Agarwal, J. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' ',
	(int) 10 => '<p> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :',
	(int) 11 => '<p> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :',
	(int) 14 => '<p> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :',
	(int) 19 => '<p> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' ',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :',
	(int) 22 => '<p> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.',
	(int) 29 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 30
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Nabin Kumar Sarma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors - Citation 122131 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '122131',
			'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulation 7(2) and 39; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 311(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Rule No. 1 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D.C. Sarma and A.K. Sharma, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'B.R. Dey, K.K. Nandhi, H. Talukdar and A.K. Choudhary, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Guwahati',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-06-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'P.G. Agarwal, J.',
			'judgement' => ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> P.G. Agarwal, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => ' 
 P.G. Agarwal, J. 
 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri J',
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
			'sub' => ';Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '122131',
		(int) 1 => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Nabin Kumar Sarma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors - Citation 122131 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '122131',
		'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulation 7(2) and 39; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 311(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Rule No. 1 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D.C. Sarma and A.K. Sharma, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'B.R. Dey, K.K. Nandhi, H. Talukdar and A.K. Choudhary, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Guwahati',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-06-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'P.G. Agarwal, J.',
		'judgement' => ' </p><p> P.G. Agarwal, J. </p><p> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.</p><p> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.</p><p> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.</p><p> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.</p><p> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :</p><p> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.</p><p> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' </p><p> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :</p><p> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'</p><p> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 </p><p> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :</p><p> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'</p><p> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :</p><p> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :</p><p> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.</p><p> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :</p><p> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' </p><p> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.</p><p> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :</p><p> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'</p><p> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.</p><p> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.</p><p> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.</p><p> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).</p><p> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.</p><p> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => ' 
 P.G. Agarwal, J. 
 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri J',
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
		'sub' => ';Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '122131',
	(int) 1 => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/122131/nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '',
	(int) 1 => '<p> P.G. Agarwal, J. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' ',
	(int) 10 => '<p> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :',
	(int) 11 => '<p> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :',
	(int) 14 => '<p> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :',
	(int) 19 => '<p> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' ',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :',
	(int) 22 => '<p> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.',
	(int) 29 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 30
$i = (int) 9
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,'

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Nabin Kumar Sarma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors - Citation 122131 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '122131',
			'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulation 7(2) and 39; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 311(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Rule No. 1 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D.C. Sarma and A.K. Sharma, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'B.R. Dey, K.K. Nandhi, H. Talukdar and A.K. Choudhary, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Guwahati',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-06-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'P.G. Agarwal, J.',
			'judgement' => ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> P.G. Agarwal, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => ' 
 P.G. Agarwal, J. 
 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri J',
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
			'sub' => ';Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '122131',
		(int) 1 => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Nabin Kumar Sarma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors - Citation 122131 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '122131',
		'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulation 7(2) and 39; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 311(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Rule No. 1 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D.C. Sarma and A.K. Sharma, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'B.R. Dey, K.K. Nandhi, H. Talukdar and A.K. Choudhary, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Guwahati',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-06-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'P.G. Agarwal, J.',
		'judgement' => ' </p><p> P.G. Agarwal, J. </p><p> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.</p><p> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.</p><p> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.</p><p> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.</p><p> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :</p><p> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.</p><p> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' </p><p> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :</p><p> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'</p><p> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 </p><p> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :</p><p> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'</p><p> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :</p><p> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :</p><p> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.</p><p> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :</p><p> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' </p><p> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.</p><p> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :</p><p> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'</p><p> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.</p><p> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.</p><p> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.</p><p> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).</p><p> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.</p><p> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => ' 
 P.G. Agarwal, J. 
 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri J',
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
		'sub' => ';Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '122131',
	(int) 1 => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/122131/nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '',
	(int) 1 => '<p> P.G. Agarwal, J. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' ',
	(int) 10 => '<p> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :',
	(int) 11 => '<p> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :',
	(int) 14 => '<p> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :',
	(int) 19 => '<p> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' ',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :',
	(int) 22 => '<p> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.',
	(int) 29 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 30
$i = (int) 10
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Nabin Kumar Sarma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors - Citation 122131 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '122131',
			'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulation 7(2) and 39; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 311(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Rule No. 1 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D.C. Sarma and A.K. Sharma, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'B.R. Dey, K.K. Nandhi, H. Talukdar and A.K. Choudhary, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Guwahati',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-06-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'P.G. Agarwal, J.',
			'judgement' => ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> P.G. Agarwal, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => ' 
 P.G. Agarwal, J. 
 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri J',
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
			'sub' => ';Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '122131',
		(int) 1 => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Nabin Kumar Sarma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors - Citation 122131 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '122131',
		'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulation 7(2) and 39; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 311(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Rule No. 1 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D.C. Sarma and A.K. Sharma, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'B.R. Dey, K.K. Nandhi, H. Talukdar and A.K. Choudhary, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Guwahati',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-06-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'P.G. Agarwal, J.',
		'judgement' => ' </p><p> P.G. Agarwal, J. </p><p> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.</p><p> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.</p><p> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.</p><p> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.</p><p> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :</p><p> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.</p><p> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' </p><p> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :</p><p> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'</p><p> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 </p><p> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :</p><p> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'</p><p> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :</p><p> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :</p><p> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.</p><p> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :</p><p> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' </p><p> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.</p><p> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :</p><p> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'</p><p> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.</p><p> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.</p><p> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.</p><p> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).</p><p> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.</p><p> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => ' 
 P.G. Agarwal, J. 
 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri J',
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
		'sub' => ';Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '122131',
	(int) 1 => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/122131/nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '',
	(int) 1 => '<p> P.G. Agarwal, J. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' ',
	(int) 10 => '<p> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :',
	(int) 11 => '<p> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :',
	(int) 14 => '<p> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :',
	(int) 19 => '<p> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' ',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :',
	(int) 22 => '<p> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.',
	(int) 29 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 30
$i = (int) 11
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Nabin Kumar Sarma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors - Citation 122131 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '122131',
			'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulation 7(2) and 39; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 311(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Rule No. 1 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D.C. Sarma and A.K. Sharma, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'B.R. Dey, K.K. Nandhi, H. Talukdar and A.K. Choudhary, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Guwahati',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-06-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'P.G. Agarwal, J.',
			'judgement' => ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> P.G. Agarwal, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => ' 
 P.G. Agarwal, J. 
 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri J',
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
			'sub' => ';Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '122131',
		(int) 1 => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Nabin Kumar Sarma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors - Citation 122131 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '122131',
		'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulation 7(2) and 39; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 311(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Rule No. 1 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D.C. Sarma and A.K. Sharma, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'B.R. Dey, K.K. Nandhi, H. Talukdar and A.K. Choudhary, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Guwahati',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-06-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'P.G. Agarwal, J.',
		'judgement' => ' </p><p> P.G. Agarwal, J. </p><p> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.</p><p> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.</p><p> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.</p><p> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.</p><p> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :</p><p> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.</p><p> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' </p><p> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :</p><p> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'</p><p> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 </p><p> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :</p><p> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'</p><p> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :</p><p> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :</p><p> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.</p><p> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :</p><p> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' </p><p> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.</p><p> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :</p><p> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'</p><p> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.</p><p> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.</p><p> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.</p><p> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).</p><p> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.</p><p> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => ' 
 P.G. Agarwal, J. 
 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri J',
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
		'sub' => ';Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '122131',
	(int) 1 => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/122131/nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '',
	(int) 1 => '<p> P.G. Agarwal, J. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' ',
	(int) 10 => '<p> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :',
	(int) 11 => '<p> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :',
	(int) 14 => '<p> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :',
	(int) 19 => '<p> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' ',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :',
	(int) 22 => '<p> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.',
	(int) 29 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 30
$i = (int) 12
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Nabin Kumar Sarma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors - Citation 122131 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '122131',
			'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulation 7(2) and 39; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 311(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Rule No. 1 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D.C. Sarma and A.K. Sharma, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'B.R. Dey, K.K. Nandhi, H. Talukdar and A.K. Choudhary, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Guwahati',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-06-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'P.G. Agarwal, J.',
			'judgement' => ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> P.G. Agarwal, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => ' 
 P.G. Agarwal, J. 
 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri J',
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
			'sub' => ';Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '122131',
		(int) 1 => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Nabin Kumar Sarma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors - Citation 122131 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '122131',
		'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulation 7(2) and 39; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 311(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Rule No. 1 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D.C. Sarma and A.K. Sharma, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'B.R. Dey, K.K. Nandhi, H. Talukdar and A.K. Choudhary, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Guwahati',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-06-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'P.G. Agarwal, J.',
		'judgement' => ' </p><p> P.G. Agarwal, J. </p><p> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.</p><p> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.</p><p> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.</p><p> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.</p><p> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :</p><p> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.</p><p> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' </p><p> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :</p><p> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'</p><p> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 </p><p> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :</p><p> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'</p><p> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :</p><p> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :</p><p> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.</p><p> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :</p><p> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' </p><p> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.</p><p> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :</p><p> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'</p><p> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.</p><p> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.</p><p> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.</p><p> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).</p><p> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.</p><p> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => ' 
 P.G. Agarwal, J. 
 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri J',
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
		'sub' => ';Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '122131',
	(int) 1 => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/122131/nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '',
	(int) 1 => '<p> P.G. Agarwal, J. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' ',
	(int) 10 => '<p> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :',
	(int) 11 => '<p> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :',
	(int) 14 => '<p> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :',
	(int) 19 => '<p> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' ',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :',
	(int) 22 => '<p> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.',
	(int) 29 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 30
$i = (int) 13
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Nabin Kumar Sarma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors - Citation 122131 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '122131',
			'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulation 7(2) and 39; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 311(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Rule No. 1 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D.C. Sarma and A.K. Sharma, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'B.R. Dey, K.K. Nandhi, H. Talukdar and A.K. Choudhary, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Guwahati',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-06-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'P.G. Agarwal, J.',
			'judgement' => ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> P.G. Agarwal, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => ' 
 P.G. Agarwal, J. 
 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri J',
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
			'sub' => ';Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '122131',
		(int) 1 => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Nabin Kumar Sarma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors - Citation 122131 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '122131',
		'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulation 7(2) and 39; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 311(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Rule No. 1 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D.C. Sarma and A.K. Sharma, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'B.R. Dey, K.K. Nandhi, H. Talukdar and A.K. Choudhary, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Guwahati',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-06-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'P.G. Agarwal, J.',
		'judgement' => ' </p><p> P.G. Agarwal, J. </p><p> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.</p><p> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.</p><p> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.</p><p> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.</p><p> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :</p><p> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.</p><p> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' </p><p> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :</p><p> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'</p><p> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 </p><p> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :</p><p> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'</p><p> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :</p><p> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :</p><p> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.</p><p> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :</p><p> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' </p><p> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.</p><p> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :</p><p> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'</p><p> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.</p><p> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.</p><p> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.</p><p> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).</p><p> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.</p><p> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => ' 
 P.G. Agarwal, J. 
 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri J',
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
		'sub' => ';Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '122131',
	(int) 1 => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/122131/nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '',
	(int) 1 => '<p> P.G. Agarwal, J. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' ',
	(int) 10 => '<p> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :',
	(int) 11 => '<p> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :',
	(int) 14 => '<p> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :',
	(int) 19 => '<p> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' ',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :',
	(int) 22 => '<p> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.',
	(int) 29 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 30
$i = (int) 14
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Nabin Kumar Sarma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors - Citation 122131 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '122131',
			'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulation 7(2) and 39; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 311(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Rule No. 1 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D.C. Sarma and A.K. Sharma, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'B.R. Dey, K.K. Nandhi, H. Talukdar and A.K. Choudhary, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Guwahati',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-06-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'P.G. Agarwal, J.',
			'judgement' => ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> P.G. Agarwal, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => ' 
 P.G. Agarwal, J. 
 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri J',
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
			'sub' => ';Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '122131',
		(int) 1 => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Nabin Kumar Sarma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors - Citation 122131 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '122131',
		'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulation 7(2) and 39; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 311(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Rule No. 1 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D.C. Sarma and A.K. Sharma, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'B.R. Dey, K.K. Nandhi, H. Talukdar and A.K. Choudhary, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Guwahati',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-06-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'P.G. Agarwal, J.',
		'judgement' => ' </p><p> P.G. Agarwal, J. </p><p> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.</p><p> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.</p><p> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.</p><p> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.</p><p> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :</p><p> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.</p><p> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' </p><p> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :</p><p> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'</p><p> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 </p><p> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :</p><p> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'</p><p> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :</p><p> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :</p><p> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.</p><p> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :</p><p> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' </p><p> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.</p><p> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :</p><p> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'</p><p> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.</p><p> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.</p><p> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.</p><p> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).</p><p> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.</p><p> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => ' 
 P.G. Agarwal, J. 
 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri J',
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
		'sub' => ';Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '122131',
	(int) 1 => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/122131/nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '',
	(int) 1 => '<p> P.G. Agarwal, J. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' ',
	(int) 10 => '<p> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :',
	(int) 11 => '<p> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :',
	(int) 14 => '<p> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :',
	(int) 19 => '<p> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' ',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :',
	(int) 22 => '<p> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.',
	(int) 29 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 30
$i = (int) 15
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Nabin Kumar Sarma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors - Citation 122131 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '122131',
			'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulation 7(2) and 39; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 311(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Rule No. 1 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D.C. Sarma and A.K. Sharma, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'B.R. Dey, K.K. Nandhi, H. Talukdar and A.K. Choudhary, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Guwahati',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-06-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'P.G. Agarwal, J.',
			'judgement' => ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> P.G. Agarwal, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => ' 
 P.G. Agarwal, J. 
 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri J',
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
			'sub' => ';Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '122131',
		(int) 1 => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Nabin Kumar Sarma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors - Citation 122131 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '122131',
		'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulation 7(2) and 39; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 311(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Rule No. 1 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D.C. Sarma and A.K. Sharma, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'B.R. Dey, K.K. Nandhi, H. Talukdar and A.K. Choudhary, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Guwahati',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-06-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'P.G. Agarwal, J.',
		'judgement' => ' </p><p> P.G. Agarwal, J. </p><p> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.</p><p> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.</p><p> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.</p><p> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.</p><p> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :</p><p> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.</p><p> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' </p><p> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :</p><p> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'</p><p> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 </p><p> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :</p><p> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'</p><p> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :</p><p> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :</p><p> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.</p><p> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :</p><p> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' </p><p> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.</p><p> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :</p><p> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'</p><p> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.</p><p> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.</p><p> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.</p><p> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).</p><p> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.</p><p> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => ' 
 P.G. Agarwal, J. 
 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri J',
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
		'sub' => ';Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '122131',
	(int) 1 => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/122131/nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '',
	(int) 1 => '<p> P.G. Agarwal, J. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' ',
	(int) 10 => '<p> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :',
	(int) 11 => '<p> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :',
	(int) 14 => '<p> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :',
	(int) 19 => '<p> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' ',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :',
	(int) 22 => '<p> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.',
	(int) 29 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 30
$i = (int) 16
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Nabin Kumar Sarma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors - Citation 122131 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '122131',
			'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulation 7(2) and 39; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 311(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Rule No. 1 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D.C. Sarma and A.K. Sharma, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'B.R. Dey, K.K. Nandhi, H. Talukdar and A.K. Choudhary, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Guwahati',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-06-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'P.G. Agarwal, J.',
			'judgement' => ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> P.G. Agarwal, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => ' 
 P.G. Agarwal, J. 
 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri J',
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
			'sub' => ';Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '122131',
		(int) 1 => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Nabin Kumar Sarma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors - Citation 122131 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '122131',
		'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulation 7(2) and 39; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 311(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Rule No. 1 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D.C. Sarma and A.K. Sharma, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'B.R. Dey, K.K. Nandhi, H. Talukdar and A.K. Choudhary, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Guwahati',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-06-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'P.G. Agarwal, J.',
		'judgement' => ' </p><p> P.G. Agarwal, J. </p><p> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.</p><p> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.</p><p> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.</p><p> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.</p><p> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :</p><p> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.</p><p> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' </p><p> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :</p><p> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'</p><p> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 </p><p> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :</p><p> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'</p><p> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :</p><p> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :</p><p> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.</p><p> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :</p><p> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' </p><p> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.</p><p> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :</p><p> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'</p><p> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.</p><p> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.</p><p> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.</p><p> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).</p><p> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.</p><p> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => ' 
 P.G. Agarwal, J. 
 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri J',
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
		'sub' => ';Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '122131',
	(int) 1 => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/122131/nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '',
	(int) 1 => '<p> P.G. Agarwal, J. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' ',
	(int) 10 => '<p> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :',
	(int) 11 => '<p> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :',
	(int) 14 => '<p> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :',
	(int) 19 => '<p> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' ',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :',
	(int) 22 => '<p> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.',
	(int) 29 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 30
$i = (int) 17
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Nabin Kumar Sarma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors - Citation 122131 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '122131',
			'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulation 7(2) and 39; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 311(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Rule No. 1 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D.C. Sarma and A.K. Sharma, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'B.R. Dey, K.K. Nandhi, H. Talukdar and A.K. Choudhary, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Guwahati',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-06-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'P.G. Agarwal, J.',
			'judgement' => ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> P.G. Agarwal, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => ' 
 P.G. Agarwal, J. 
 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri J',
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
			'sub' => ';Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '122131',
		(int) 1 => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Nabin Kumar Sarma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors - Citation 122131 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '122131',
		'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulation 7(2) and 39; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 311(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Rule No. 1 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D.C. Sarma and A.K. Sharma, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'B.R. Dey, K.K. Nandhi, H. Talukdar and A.K. Choudhary, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Guwahati',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-06-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'P.G. Agarwal, J.',
		'judgement' => ' </p><p> P.G. Agarwal, J. </p><p> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.</p><p> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.</p><p> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.</p><p> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.</p><p> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :</p><p> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.</p><p> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' </p><p> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :</p><p> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'</p><p> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 </p><p> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :</p><p> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'</p><p> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :</p><p> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :</p><p> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.</p><p> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :</p><p> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' </p><p> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.</p><p> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :</p><p> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'</p><p> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.</p><p> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.</p><p> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.</p><p> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).</p><p> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.</p><p> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => ' 
 P.G. Agarwal, J. 
 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri J',
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
		'sub' => ';Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '122131',
	(int) 1 => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/122131/nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '',
	(int) 1 => '<p> P.G. Agarwal, J. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' ',
	(int) 10 => '<p> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :',
	(int) 11 => '<p> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :',
	(int) 14 => '<p> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :',
	(int) 19 => '<p> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' ',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :',
	(int) 22 => '<p> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.',
	(int) 29 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 30
$i = (int) 18
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Nabin Kumar Sarma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors - Citation 122131 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '122131',
			'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulation 7(2) and 39; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 311(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Rule No. 1 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D.C. Sarma and A.K. Sharma, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'B.R. Dey, K.K. Nandhi, H. Talukdar and A.K. Choudhary, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Guwahati',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-06-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'P.G. Agarwal, J.',
			'judgement' => ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> P.G. Agarwal, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => ' 
 P.G. Agarwal, J. 
 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri J',
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
			'sub' => ';Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '122131',
		(int) 1 => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Nabin Kumar Sarma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors - Citation 122131 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '122131',
		'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulation 7(2) and 39; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 311(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Rule No. 1 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D.C. Sarma and A.K. Sharma, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'B.R. Dey, K.K. Nandhi, H. Talukdar and A.K. Choudhary, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Guwahati',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-06-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'P.G. Agarwal, J.',
		'judgement' => ' </p><p> P.G. Agarwal, J. </p><p> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.</p><p> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.</p><p> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.</p><p> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.</p><p> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :</p><p> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.</p><p> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' </p><p> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :</p><p> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'</p><p> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 </p><p> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :</p><p> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'</p><p> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :</p><p> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :</p><p> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.</p><p> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :</p><p> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' </p><p> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.</p><p> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :</p><p> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'</p><p> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.</p><p> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.</p><p> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.</p><p> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).</p><p> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.</p><p> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => ' 
 P.G. Agarwal, J. 
 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri J',
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
		'sub' => ';Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '122131',
	(int) 1 => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/122131/nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '',
	(int) 1 => '<p> P.G. Agarwal, J. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' ',
	(int) 10 => '<p> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :',
	(int) 11 => '<p> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :',
	(int) 14 => '<p> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :',
	(int) 19 => '<p> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' ',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :',
	(int) 22 => '<p> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.',
	(int) 29 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 30
$i = (int) 19
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.'

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Nabin Kumar Sarma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors - Citation 122131 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '122131',
			'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulation 7(2) and 39; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 311(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Rule No. 1 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D.C. Sarma and A.K. Sharma, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'B.R. Dey, K.K. Nandhi, H. Talukdar and A.K. Choudhary, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Guwahati',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-06-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'P.G. Agarwal, J.',
			'judgement' => ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> P.G. Agarwal, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => ' 
 P.G. Agarwal, J. 
 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri J',
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
			'sub' => ';Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '122131',
		(int) 1 => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Nabin Kumar Sarma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors - Citation 122131 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '122131',
		'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulation 7(2) and 39; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 311(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Rule No. 1 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D.C. Sarma and A.K. Sharma, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'B.R. Dey, K.K. Nandhi, H. Talukdar and A.K. Choudhary, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Guwahati',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-06-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'P.G. Agarwal, J.',
		'judgement' => ' </p><p> P.G. Agarwal, J. </p><p> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.</p><p> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.</p><p> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.</p><p> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.</p><p> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :</p><p> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.</p><p> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' </p><p> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :</p><p> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'</p><p> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 </p><p> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :</p><p> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'</p><p> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :</p><p> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :</p><p> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.</p><p> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :</p><p> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' </p><p> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.</p><p> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :</p><p> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'</p><p> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.</p><p> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.</p><p> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.</p><p> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).</p><p> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.</p><p> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => ' 
 P.G. Agarwal, J. 
 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri J',
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
		'sub' => ';Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '122131',
	(int) 1 => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/122131/nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '',
	(int) 1 => '<p> P.G. Agarwal, J. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' ',
	(int) 10 => '<p> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :',
	(int) 11 => '<p> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :',
	(int) 14 => '<p> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :',
	(int) 19 => '<p> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' ',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :',
	(int) 22 => '<p> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.',
	(int) 29 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 30
$i = (int) 20
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Nabin Kumar Sarma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors - Citation 122131 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '122131',
			'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulation 7(2) and 39; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 311(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Rule No. 1 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D.C. Sarma and A.K. Sharma, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'B.R. Dey, K.K. Nandhi, H. Talukdar and A.K. Choudhary, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Guwahati',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-06-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'P.G. Agarwal, J.',
			'judgement' => ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> P.G. Agarwal, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => ' 
 P.G. Agarwal, J. 
 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri J',
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
			'sub' => ';Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '122131',
		(int) 1 => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Nabin Kumar Sarma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors - Citation 122131 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '122131',
		'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulation 7(2) and 39; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 311(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Rule No. 1 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D.C. Sarma and A.K. Sharma, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'B.R. Dey, K.K. Nandhi, H. Talukdar and A.K. Choudhary, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Guwahati',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-06-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'P.G. Agarwal, J.',
		'judgement' => ' </p><p> P.G. Agarwal, J. </p><p> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.</p><p> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.</p><p> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.</p><p> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.</p><p> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :</p><p> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.</p><p> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' </p><p> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :</p><p> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'</p><p> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 </p><p> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :</p><p> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'</p><p> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :</p><p> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :</p><p> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.</p><p> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :</p><p> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' </p><p> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.</p><p> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :</p><p> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'</p><p> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.</p><p> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.</p><p> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.</p><p> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).</p><p> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.</p><p> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => ' 
 P.G. Agarwal, J. 
 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri J',
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
		'sub' => ';Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '122131',
	(int) 1 => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/122131/nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '',
	(int) 1 => '<p> P.G. Agarwal, J. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' ',
	(int) 10 => '<p> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :',
	(int) 11 => '<p> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :',
	(int) 14 => '<p> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :',
	(int) 19 => '<p> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' ',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :',
	(int) 22 => '<p> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.',
	(int) 29 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 30
$i = (int) 21
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Nabin Kumar Sarma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors - Citation 122131 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '122131',
			'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulation 7(2) and 39; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 311(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Rule No. 1 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D.C. Sarma and A.K. Sharma, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'B.R. Dey, K.K. Nandhi, H. Talukdar and A.K. Choudhary, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Guwahati',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-06-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'P.G. Agarwal, J.',
			'judgement' => ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> P.G. Agarwal, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => ' 
 P.G. Agarwal, J. 
 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri J',
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
			'sub' => ';Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '122131',
		(int) 1 => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Nabin Kumar Sarma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors - Citation 122131 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '122131',
		'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulation 7(2) and 39; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 311(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Rule No. 1 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D.C. Sarma and A.K. Sharma, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'B.R. Dey, K.K. Nandhi, H. Talukdar and A.K. Choudhary, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Guwahati',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-06-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'P.G. Agarwal, J.',
		'judgement' => ' </p><p> P.G. Agarwal, J. </p><p> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.</p><p> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.</p><p> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.</p><p> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.</p><p> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :</p><p> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.</p><p> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' </p><p> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :</p><p> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'</p><p> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 </p><p> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :</p><p> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'</p><p> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :</p><p> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :</p><p> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.</p><p> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :</p><p> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' </p><p> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.</p><p> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :</p><p> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'</p><p> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.</p><p> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.</p><p> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.</p><p> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).</p><p> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.</p><p> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => ' 
 P.G. Agarwal, J. 
 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri J',
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
		'sub' => ';Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '122131',
	(int) 1 => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/122131/nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '',
	(int) 1 => '<p> P.G. Agarwal, J. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' ',
	(int) 10 => '<p> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :',
	(int) 11 => '<p> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :',
	(int) 14 => '<p> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :',
	(int) 19 => '<p> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' ',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :',
	(int) 22 => '<p> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.',
	(int) 29 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 30
$i = (int) 22
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Nabin Kumar Sarma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors - Citation 122131 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '122131',
			'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulation 7(2) and 39; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 311(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Rule No. 1 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D.C. Sarma and A.K. Sharma, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'B.R. Dey, K.K. Nandhi, H. Talukdar and A.K. Choudhary, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Guwahati',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-06-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'P.G. Agarwal, J.',
			'judgement' => ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> P.G. Agarwal, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => ' 
 P.G. Agarwal, J. 
 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri J',
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
			'sub' => ';Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '122131',
		(int) 1 => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Nabin Kumar Sarma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors - Citation 122131 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '122131',
		'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulation 7(2) and 39; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 311(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Rule No. 1 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D.C. Sarma and A.K. Sharma, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'B.R. Dey, K.K. Nandhi, H. Talukdar and A.K. Choudhary, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Guwahati',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-06-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'P.G. Agarwal, J.',
		'judgement' => ' </p><p> P.G. Agarwal, J. </p><p> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.</p><p> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.</p><p> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.</p><p> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.</p><p> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :</p><p> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.</p><p> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' </p><p> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :</p><p> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'</p><p> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 </p><p> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :</p><p> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'</p><p> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :</p><p> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :</p><p> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.</p><p> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :</p><p> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' </p><p> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.</p><p> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :</p><p> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'</p><p> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.</p><p> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.</p><p> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.</p><p> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).</p><p> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.</p><p> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => ' 
 P.G. Agarwal, J. 
 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri J',
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
		'sub' => ';Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '122131',
	(int) 1 => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/122131/nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '',
	(int) 1 => '<p> P.G. Agarwal, J. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' ',
	(int) 10 => '<p> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :',
	(int) 11 => '<p> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :',
	(int) 14 => '<p> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :',
	(int) 19 => '<p> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' ',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :',
	(int) 22 => '<p> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.',
	(int) 29 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 30
$i = (int) 23
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Nabin Kumar Sarma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors - Citation 122131 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '122131',
			'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulation 7(2) and 39; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 311(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Rule No. 1 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D.C. Sarma and A.K. Sharma, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'B.R. Dey, K.K. Nandhi, H. Talukdar and A.K. Choudhary, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Guwahati',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-06-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'P.G. Agarwal, J.',
			'judgement' => ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> P.G. Agarwal, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => ' 
 P.G. Agarwal, J. 
 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri J',
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
			'sub' => ';Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '122131',
		(int) 1 => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Nabin Kumar Sarma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors - Citation 122131 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '122131',
		'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulation 7(2) and 39; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 311(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Rule No. 1 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D.C. Sarma and A.K. Sharma, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'B.R. Dey, K.K. Nandhi, H. Talukdar and A.K. Choudhary, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Guwahati',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-06-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'P.G. Agarwal, J.',
		'judgement' => ' </p><p> P.G. Agarwal, J. </p><p> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.</p><p> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.</p><p> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.</p><p> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.</p><p> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :</p><p> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.</p><p> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' </p><p> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :</p><p> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'</p><p> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 </p><p> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :</p><p> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'</p><p> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :</p><p> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :</p><p> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.</p><p> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :</p><p> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' </p><p> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.</p><p> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :</p><p> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'</p><p> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.</p><p> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.</p><p> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.</p><p> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).</p><p> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.</p><p> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => ' 
 P.G. Agarwal, J. 
 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri J',
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
		'sub' => ';Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '122131',
	(int) 1 => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/122131/nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '',
	(int) 1 => '<p> P.G. Agarwal, J. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' ',
	(int) 10 => '<p> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :',
	(int) 11 => '<p> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :',
	(int) 14 => '<p> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :',
	(int) 19 => '<p> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' ',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :',
	(int) 22 => '<p> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.',
	(int) 29 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 30
$i = (int) 24
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Nabin Kumar Sarma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors - Citation 122131 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '122131',
			'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulation 7(2) and 39; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 311(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Rule No. 1 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D.C. Sarma and A.K. Sharma, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'B.R. Dey, K.K. Nandhi, H. Talukdar and A.K. Choudhary, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Guwahati',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-06-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'P.G. Agarwal, J.',
			'judgement' => ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> P.G. Agarwal, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => ' 
 P.G. Agarwal, J. 
 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri J',
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
			'sub' => ';Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '122131',
		(int) 1 => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Nabin Kumar Sarma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors - Citation 122131 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '122131',
		'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulation 7(2) and 39; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 311(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Rule No. 1 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D.C. Sarma and A.K. Sharma, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'B.R. Dey, K.K. Nandhi, H. Talukdar and A.K. Choudhary, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Guwahati',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-06-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'P.G. Agarwal, J.',
		'judgement' => ' </p><p> P.G. Agarwal, J. </p><p> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.</p><p> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.</p><p> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.</p><p> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.</p><p> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :</p><p> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.</p><p> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' </p><p> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :</p><p> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'</p><p> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 </p><p> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :</p><p> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'</p><p> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :</p><p> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :</p><p> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.</p><p> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :</p><p> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' </p><p> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.</p><p> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :</p><p> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'</p><p> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.</p><p> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.</p><p> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.</p><p> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).</p><p> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.</p><p> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => ' 
 P.G. Agarwal, J. 
 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri J',
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
		'sub' => ';Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '122131',
	(int) 1 => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/122131/nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '',
	(int) 1 => '<p> P.G. Agarwal, J. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' ',
	(int) 10 => '<p> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :',
	(int) 11 => '<p> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :',
	(int) 14 => '<p> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :',
	(int) 19 => '<p> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' ',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :',
	(int) 22 => '<p> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.',
	(int) 29 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 30
$i = (int) 25
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Nabin Kumar Sarma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors - Citation 122131 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '122131',
			'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulation 7(2) and 39; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 311(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Rule No. 1 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D.C. Sarma and A.K. Sharma, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'B.R. Dey, K.K. Nandhi, H. Talukdar and A.K. Choudhary, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Guwahati',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-06-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'P.G. Agarwal, J.',
			'judgement' => ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> P.G. Agarwal, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => ' 
 P.G. Agarwal, J. 
 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri J',
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
			'sub' => ';Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '122131',
		(int) 1 => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Nabin Kumar Sarma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors - Citation 122131 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '122131',
		'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulation 7(2) and 39; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 311(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Rule No. 1 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D.C. Sarma and A.K. Sharma, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'B.R. Dey, K.K. Nandhi, H. Talukdar and A.K. Choudhary, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Guwahati',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-06-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'P.G. Agarwal, J.',
		'judgement' => ' </p><p> P.G. Agarwal, J. </p><p> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.</p><p> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.</p><p> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.</p><p> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.</p><p> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :</p><p> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.</p><p> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' </p><p> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :</p><p> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'</p><p> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 </p><p> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :</p><p> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'</p><p> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :</p><p> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :</p><p> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.</p><p> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :</p><p> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' </p><p> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.</p><p> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :</p><p> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'</p><p> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.</p><p> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.</p><p> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.</p><p> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).</p><p> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.</p><p> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => ' 
 P.G. Agarwal, J. 
 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri J',
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
		'sub' => ';Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '122131',
	(int) 1 => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/122131/nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '',
	(int) 1 => '<p> P.G. Agarwal, J. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' ',
	(int) 10 => '<p> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :',
	(int) 11 => '<p> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :',
	(int) 14 => '<p> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :',
	(int) 19 => '<p> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' ',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :',
	(int) 22 => '<p> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.',
	(int) 29 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 30
$i = (int) 26
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Nabin Kumar Sarma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors - Citation 122131 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '122131',
			'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulation 7(2) and 39; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 311(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Rule No. 1 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D.C. Sarma and A.K. Sharma, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'B.R. Dey, K.K. Nandhi, H. Talukdar and A.K. Choudhary, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Guwahati',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-06-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'P.G. Agarwal, J.',
			'judgement' => ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> P.G. Agarwal, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => ' 
 P.G. Agarwal, J. 
 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri J',
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
			'sub' => ';Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '122131',
		(int) 1 => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Nabin Kumar Sarma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors - Citation 122131 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '122131',
		'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulation 7(2) and 39; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 311(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Rule No. 1 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D.C. Sarma and A.K. Sharma, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'B.R. Dey, K.K. Nandhi, H. Talukdar and A.K. Choudhary, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Guwahati',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-06-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'P.G. Agarwal, J.',
		'judgement' => ' </p><p> P.G. Agarwal, J. </p><p> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.</p><p> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.</p><p> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.</p><p> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.</p><p> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :</p><p> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.</p><p> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' </p><p> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :</p><p> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'</p><p> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 </p><p> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :</p><p> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'</p><p> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :</p><p> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :</p><p> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.</p><p> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :</p><p> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' </p><p> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.</p><p> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :</p><p> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'</p><p> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.</p><p> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.</p><p> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.</p><p> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).</p><p> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.</p><p> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => ' 
 P.G. Agarwal, J. 
 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri J',
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
		'sub' => ';Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '122131',
	(int) 1 => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/122131/nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '',
	(int) 1 => '<p> P.G. Agarwal, J. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' ',
	(int) 10 => '<p> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :',
	(int) 11 => '<p> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :',
	(int) 14 => '<p> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :',
	(int) 19 => '<p> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' ',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :',
	(int) 22 => '<p> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.',
	(int) 29 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 30
$i = (int) 27
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Nabin Kumar Sarma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors - Citation 122131 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '122131',
			'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulation 7(2) and 39; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 311(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Rule No. 1 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D.C. Sarma and A.K. Sharma, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'B.R. Dey, K.K. Nandhi, H. Talukdar and A.K. Choudhary, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Guwahati',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-06-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'P.G. Agarwal, J.',
			'judgement' => ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> P.G. Agarwal, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => ' 
 P.G. Agarwal, J. 
 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri J',
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
			'sub' => ';Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '122131',
		(int) 1 => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Nabin Kumar Sarma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors - Citation 122131 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '122131',
		'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulation 7(2) and 39; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 311(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Rule No. 1 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D.C. Sarma and A.K. Sharma, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'B.R. Dey, K.K. Nandhi, H. Talukdar and A.K. Choudhary, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Guwahati',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-06-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'P.G. Agarwal, J.',
		'judgement' => ' </p><p> P.G. Agarwal, J. </p><p> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.</p><p> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.</p><p> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.</p><p> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.</p><p> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :</p><p> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.</p><p> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' </p><p> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :</p><p> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'</p><p> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 </p><p> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :</p><p> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'</p><p> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :</p><p> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :</p><p> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.</p><p> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :</p><p> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' </p><p> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.</p><p> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :</p><p> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'</p><p> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.</p><p> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.</p><p> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.</p><p> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).</p><p> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.</p><p> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => ' 
 P.G. Agarwal, J. 
 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri J',
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
		'sub' => ';Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '122131',
	(int) 1 => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/122131/nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '',
	(int) 1 => '<p> P.G. Agarwal, J. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' ',
	(int) 10 => '<p> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :',
	(int) 11 => '<p> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :',
	(int) 14 => '<p> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :',
	(int) 19 => '<p> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' ',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :',
	(int) 22 => '<p> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.',
	(int) 29 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 30
$i = (int) 28
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Nabin Kumar Sarma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors - Citation 122131 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '122131',
			'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulation 7(2) and 39; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 311(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Rule No. 1 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D.C. Sarma and A.K. Sharma, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'B.R. Dey, K.K. Nandhi, H. Talukdar and A.K. Choudhary, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Guwahati',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-06-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'P.G. Agarwal, J.',
			'judgement' => ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> P.G. Agarwal, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => ' 
 P.G. Agarwal, J. 
 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri J',
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
			'sub' => ';Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '122131',
		(int) 1 => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Nabin Kumar Sarma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors - Citation 122131 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '122131',
		'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulation 7(2) and 39; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 311(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Rule No. 1 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NabIn Kumar Sarma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D.C. Sarma and A.K. Sharma, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'B.R. Dey, K.K. Nandhi, H. Talukdar and A.K. Choudhary, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Guwahati',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-06-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'P.G. Agarwal, J.',
		'judgement' => ' </p><p> P.G. Agarwal, J. </p><p> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.</p><p> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.</p><p> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.</p><p> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.</p><p> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :</p><p> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.</p><p> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' </p><p> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :</p><p> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'</p><p> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 </p><p> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :</p><p> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'</p><p> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :</p><p> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :</p><p> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.</p><p> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :</p><p> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' </p><p> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.</p><p> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :</p><p> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'</p><p> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.</p><p> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.</p><p> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.</p><p> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).</p><p> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.</p><p> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => ' 
 P.G. Agarwal, J. 
 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri J',
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.',
		'sub' => ';Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '122131',
	(int) 1 => 'nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/122131/nabin-kumar-sarma-vs-insurance-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '',
	(int) 1 => '<p> P.G. Agarwal, J. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p> 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri Jadunath Borbora, being the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, were subjected to a common disciplinary proceeding. However, the relief sought for in the said two writ petition are different.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> 3. The petitioner, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma (since deceased) joined the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year, 1958 and in the year 1986, he was serving as office assistant at the Golaghat branch of the L.I.C. on 14.8.1986, Nabin Kumar Sharma was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted to him alleging mis-appropriation of corporation's money to the tune of Rs. 30,634.72 paisa during the period from 1982 to 1986. The petitioner was tried alongwith Mr. Jadunath Borbora and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989. The respondents slept over the matter and did not take any action on enquiry report dated 27.8.1989, Annexure - 8 to the petition. In the meantime, when the petitioner was under suspension and on the verge of retirement, second charge sheet was issued on 18.7.1995 alleging mis-appropriation of a sum of rupees around one lakh. The petitioner was to retire on attaining superannuation on 30.9.1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 2.9.1995 and the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry within a record time of only 9 days and submitted his report on 11.9.1995, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.9.1995 to show cause in respect of 1987 enquiry report and 1995 enquiry report, within 2 days and thereafter on 29.9.1996, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply and on that day itself, the impugned order was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and penalty of reduction to the minimum scale and recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000 was awarded in the first case and penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed in the second case, just one day before his retirement. It also provided that the period of suspension, i.e., 14.1.1986 to 29.9.1995 be treated as not spent on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal provided under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first charge, he was partly allowed to the extent that reduction of pay scale to the lowest was set aside maintaining the recovery. Hence the present writ petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sri Nabin Kumar Sharma died and his legal heirs i.e., the wife, sons and daughter were brought on record. By the interim order dated 8.1.1996, the recovery of the amount was stayed.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 5. In the first charge, sheet of 1987, the petitioner alongwith Sri Jadunath Borbora were charged for mis-appropriation involving 115 numbers of irregular payments.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> 6. The said disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the 15 commission agents were called for to establish the charge of irregular payment and out of that 5 persons only appeared. These witnesses did not support the allegations, and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty of irregular payment. It is submitted that the manner in which the employer was allowed to cross examine their own witnesses strikes at the every root of the fair enquiry. A bare persual of enquiry report will show the substance of the above allegation. The relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as follows :',
	(int) 8 => '<p> 'For the purpose of cross examination of witness fifteen numbers of agents were called for cross examination. But only five of them appeared for cross examination.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> During the entire period of holding cross examination of witness both the charged employees were present. They were given chance to ask question to the witness. But they did not ask anything,' ',
	(int) 10 => '<p> 7. It was further submitted that the LIC was convinced about the hollowness in the charge and the enquiry report and thereafter, slept over the said enquiry report for more than 6 years and did not initiate any action and when the petitioner was about to retire on 30.9.1985, second charge was filed on 18.7.1995 in respect of certain allegations for the period of 1982 to 1986. As the petitioner was under suspension from 1986 onwards, the second enquiry was conducted at a jet speed as the enquiry officer has got the following instruction :',
	(int) 11 => '<p> 'I was also instructed to conduct the enquiry as early as possible.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p> 8. In view of the fact that the employee is due retire on 30.9.1995 and the notice was issued to the employees on 2.9.1995 and enquiry was held on 6.9.1995 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 9. The petitioner has alleged violation of Principle of Natural Justice. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura, reported in 2000 (3) SLR 520. This court held that the opport unity of hearing means a reasonable, genuine and affecting opportunity and not merely pretends. The opportunity to be provided is to be tailored to the situation keeping in mind the status as well as educational, social background of the employee. We find that the question of natural justice was succinctly considered and observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1999 SC 677 which read as follows :',
	(int) 14 => '<p> 'The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of 'Reasonable Opportunity', contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The 'Bias' in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out of the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed 'fix him up'.'',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 10. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the second charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the LIC and the Enquiry Officer took upon himself to find out the truth and veracity of the charge with the help of the Presenting Officer and in the process cross-examined the employee. This becomes clear from the following narration in the enquiry report, which lend support to the submissions as reports the manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted :',
	(int) 16 => '<p> 'Commission paid in cash but no commission ledger :',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Sum of Rs. 26190.47 has been alleged to be misappropriated by the employees. I have carefully examined the records which were produced before me by the Presenting Officer Sri P C Sharma to substantiate charge. The employee was also questioned as to how it had happened when there has been payments of commission as per the cash paid Books but relevant ledgers are not there. During the course of interrogation it also came out that Shri NK Sharma was maintaining the Commission ledgers as well as writing the Commission Cash paid book. In view of the evidence which were placed before me it is difficult to say that the amount where the commission is paid on cash paid book but commission ledgers are not found, the amount is misappropriated by Sri NK Sharma. On mere suspicion, the amount of Rs. 26190.47 can not be fixed up as amount, misappropriated by Sri N K Sharma. At the same time the fact can not be denied that the man dealing with the commission job should have kept the records properly and safely. Therefore, there was gross negligence on part of employee for not having maintained the record properly which should have been.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> Commission paid in cash but no entry in the commission Ledger :',
	(int) 19 => '<p> Amount of Rs. 49,304.12 has been alleged to be misappropriated under 135 item. The relevant records were examined and it is found correct that commission is paid as per the cash Book and ledgers of the concerned Agents were also there but there was no entry of these cases in ledgers. It is again case of negligence on part of the employees Sri N K Sharma who was dealing with the commission payment and supposed to maintain the records properly. The evidence in possession not hold the employee guilty for having misappropriated Rs. 49,394.12 but it certainly proves that the employee had intentionally neglected his duties.' ',
	(int) 20 => '<p> 11. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 24517.41 paise only against the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,00,031.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> 12. Although the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 and 2, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner is guilty of all the five charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18.7,195. The Senior Divisional Manager-cum-disciplinary authority has not written a single word as to why he is dis-agreeing with the enquiry officer. Further, in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the above. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunja Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SLR 715, the Apex Court in earlier decision held that when the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the report of enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing of the opportunity is necessary to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The Apex Court held :',
	(int) 22 => '<p> 'The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.'',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 13. The above decision was reiterated in the State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003 (2) SLR 59.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> 14. The respondent L.I.C. has not come up with any explanation as to why they slept over 1989 enquiry report for a long 6 years and thereafter, initiated a second enquiry and computed it within a fortnight and passed the impugned order, Mr. Dey, however, submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioners were provided for under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulation, 1960.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> 15. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions we hold that both the departmental proceeding suffers from the vires of non compliance of principle of natural justice, which has led to miscarriage of justice. The findings of guilty in the second chargesheet was in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> 16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders dated 29.9.1995 (Annexure 12 and 13 to the writ petition).',
	(int) 27 => '<p> 17. The petitioner is no more in this world. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to take a compassionate view of the matter in passing necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations so that, justice is done to the legal heirs of the deceased, who are before us in this writ petition.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> 18. With the above observations and discussions this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.',
	(int) 29 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 30
$i = (int) 29
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Subject	;Service
Court	Guwahati High Court
Decided On	Jun-27-2003
Case Number	Civil Rule No. 1 of 1997
Judge	P.G. Agarwal, J.
Acts	Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 - Regulation 7(2) and 39; Constitution of India - Article 311(2)
Appellant	NabIn Kumar Sarma
Respondent	Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.
Appellant Advocate	D.C. Sarma and A.K. Sharma, Advs.
Respondent Advocate	B.R. Dey, K.K. Nandhi, H. Talukdar and A.K. Choudhary, Advs.
Prior history	P.G. Agarwal, J. 1. Heard Mr. D. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India. 2. This petition has been heard alongwith Civil Rule No. 4145/97 filed by Sri Jadunath Borbora. The said civil rule has been disposed of by separate order. On the submission advanced by the learned counsel, both the civil rule were heard together for the simple reason is that the two petitioners namely, Sri Nabin Kumar Sarma and Sri J

NabIn Kumar Sarma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors. - Court Judgment