AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ravi Malimath, J.—The petitioner was employed with the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation. Based on certain acts committed by the petitioner, an article-of-charge was issued to him. Three charges were leveled against the petitioner. The petitioner denied the same and an enquiry was held. During the enquiry proceedings, at the first sitting of the enquiry, the petitioner accepted charge Nos. 2 and 3 unconditionally. As regards charge No. 1 he denied the same, stating that he has obtained an authorization letter from the Life Insurance Corporation for receiving the cheque etc. When the documents were produced and the petitioner having examined the same, he accepted charge No. 1. Therefore, on he accepting the three charges, the charges against him were held to be proved. The Disciplinary Authority ordered recovery of interest as well as removal from service of the Corporation, in terms of Regulation-39(1) of LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. He preferred an appeal. The appeal was dismissed. Hence, the present writ petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the findings recorded by the Enquiring Officer is improper. That even though he has accepted all the three charges, the same have been done due to the pressure imposed on him and that he does not accept any of the charges. The petitioner further contends that he was assured that in case he accepts the charges he would be let-out with the minor penalty. He further pleads that the punishment imposed on him is disproportionate to the charges leveled
On the other hand, Ms. S. Nagoor Roja, learned counsel appearing for the respondents defends the impugned order. She contends that when the petitioner accepted the charges, nothing further remains for consideration. That the integrity of the respondent-corporation requires to be maintained and the penalty imposed is just and proper. Hence, the question of offering any lesser punishment to the petitioner does not arise. An enquiry had been initiated and the same should reach a logical end. Therefore, the writ petition be dismissed.
On hearing learned counsels, I''m of the considered view that there is no merit in the writ petition.
Admittedly all the three charges have been accepted by the petitioner. The appellate authority on considering the plea of the petitioner, has terminated the petitioner from the service. I''m of the considered view that the punishment imposed is not disproportionate. When the charge-sheeted employee has accepted all the charges, nothing less remains. Only because the quantum of money involved is less, he is not entitled for a lesser punishment. The integrity and standards of the respondent-corporation requires to be maintained. It is not the case of the petitioner that the act alleged against him has happened on the spur of the moment or otherwise it is a premeditated act and he has determined to create such a situation that has caused loss to the respondents.
Under these circumstances, the petitioner in view of the admitted situation as well as the charges leveled against him, in my considered view would not be entitled to be treated in a lenient manner. The punishment imposed on him is just and proper. So far as the contention that he has agreed to the charges only because he was offered lesser punishment cannot be accepted. There is no material to establish the same. Even otherwise, the question of offering a truce to the petitioner, would not arise for consideration, especially, when the charge-sheet has been issued and the enquiry was under progress. Consequently, the writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.
Rule discharged.