Summary
The Court upheld dismissal of an LIC employee who issued premium receipts without receiving payment. His admissions and independently adduced evidence established the charges; workload and family worries did not provide a defence. The enquiry observed natural justice, and dismissal was proportionate to the serious financial misconduct. An earlier Rs 50,000 ex gratia payment was allowed to remain with him.
Issues
- Whether the employee’s admitted conduct and the evidence established misconduct.
- Whether the enquiry or dismissal punishment warranted interference.
Held
- The employee admitted issuing the disputed receipts without receiving the premium amounts and sought leniency. His explanations of workload and family difficulties did not answer the charges; LIC also proved them through evidence before the enquiry officer and Tribunal. (¶ 22–26)
- The employee participated throughout, natural justice was observed and no prejudice was shown. The Court found no basis to reopen the accepted enquiry findings or reappreciate the witnesses’ evidence. (¶¶ 24–26, 30–31)
- Employees handling customers’ money must exercise utmost honesty, integrity and diligence. Acting beyond authority is itself misconduct; absence of ultimate loss or personal profit does not answer such a breach of financial discipline. (¶ 27–28)
- Given the gravity of the proven charges and absence of a substantive defence, dismissal under the service regulations was appropriate and did not warrant leniency. The Rs 50,000 already paid ex gratia under an interim order could remain with the employee. (¶ 29–33)
Result
Employee’s appeal dismissed and dismissal upheld; previously paid Rs 50,000 ex gratia retained by the employee.