AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
1 Questioning the action of the respondents in issuing the charge sheet dated 29.09.2017 and the disciplinary proceedings dated 11.03.2019 issued by the third respondent imposing a penalty of reduction of pay by two stages in time scale, appeal confirmation proceedings dated 02.12.2019 issued by the second respondent and further revision confirmation proceedings dated 21.03.2020 of the first respondent and for a consequential direction to hold that the petitioner is entitled for sanction and restoration of two stages in the time scale of pay along with interest, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
2 The facts of the case are that during the year 2013-14 a case of misappropriation of funds of the Life Insurance Corporation came to light at Jaggaiahpet branch office, as such an investigation was ordered into and also a Vigilance case was registered by the Corporation. Since the financial loss caused to the Corporation was around two Crores of rupees, the competent authority had lodged a complaint with the CBI, Visakhapatnam. The outcome of the investigation was that the misappropriation was caused between 2001-2014 and that blank cheques of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Branch Account were taken from the branch and were misused by issuing them in favour of some employees and outsiders. The transactions were made without corresponding entry in the books of accounts, thereby causing financial loss to the Corporation. To cover up the same, the bank reconciliation statement of the branch was manipulated thereby presenting an apparently fair picture by passing spurious adjustment vouchers. In that regard, the office could trace the involvement of the petitioner under some of the transactions while he worked at Jaggaiapet branch as Head of the Accounts Department. Accordingly two charges were framed against the petitioner, levelling that he violated the provisions of Regulations 21 and 24 read with Regulation No.39 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulatins, 1960, which were held proved during the course of enquiry and accordingly punishment of reduction of pay by two stages in time scale was imposed against him as specified under Regulation 39 (1) (a) to (g). Hence the present writ petition.
3 The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that in spite of repeated requests, the petitioner has no access to any of the original documents instead the authorities provided him only screen shots from which it cannot be established that the said transactions were spurious or not. He further submitted that the respondents without providing opportunity to the petitioner to verify the original documents but simply relied on the report of the enquiry officer in imposing the impugned penalty. He further submitted that even the appellate and revisional authorities have confirmed the findings of the disciplinary authority, which is nothing but violation of principles of natural justice.
4 On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that since the period of misconduct pertains to a period of more than ten years, some of the physical papers were not available at the branch office and the same might have been destroyed by the concerned / involved employees with pre-plan and mala fide intention. Hence the office had to depend on the data stored in the computer generated e-feat modules and accordingly the screen shots of the vouchers were made available to the concerned employees on whom the disciplinary proceedings were initiated. He further submitted that the screen shots of the vouchers also contain the date, amount, detailed narration describing the nature and content of the vouchers etc. He further submitted that the vouchers were prepared, passed, checked and validated by the employees authorized to operate the module using the unique login id and password created by the user.
5 The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the petitioner has passed or validated the vouchers without any valid reason and without verifying the correctness which facilitated manipulation of bank reconciliation statements. He further submitted that if it is required to change or alter the voucher generated through the module, it has again to be done only through the system while following the acceptable accounting entries and procedures thereof and if any discrepancies are observed in the module, the same are to be brought to the notice of the concerned higher authorities. Instead of doing so, the petitioner has straight away passed the vouchers, thereby causing financial loss to the Corporation.
6 It is to be noticed that the petitioner did not oppose the checking or passing or validation of the spurious vouchers. He only submits that he did not find any manipulation or misappropriation in the transactions as alleged by the Corporation. But it was found during the investigation that these spurious vouchers led to misappropriation of funds at Jaggaiahpet branch office thereby causing financial loss to the Corporation. Therefore, he cannot say that the said spurious vouchers are genuine.
7 It is to be further noticed that though screen shots were produced and admitted during the enquiry proceedings, they are equivalent to original vouchers since they were certified by the authorized official of the Corporation.
8 It is settled position of law that secondary evidence can b e led by the parties if the primary evidence was not available.
9 Petitioner is not disputing the vouchers but his plea is that original vouchers were not provided to him for verification. Mere non-production of physical vouchers does not relieve him from the irregularities, though not the illegalities, committed by him.
10 The petitioner was charged for passing the vouchers without verifying their correctness which facilitated manipulation of bank reconciliation statements leading to misappropriation of Corporation’s funds and thereby causing loss to the public exchequer.
11 The petitioner is also not disputing about conducting of the enquiry proceedings. The documents adduced as evidence in the form of PD1 to PD5 prove that the vouchers were passed by the petitioner without verifying their correctness which facilitated for manipulation of the bank reconciliation statements.
12 Having regard to the above reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority, have, in unequivocal terms accepted the findings of the disciplinary authority, which is based on sound reasoning.
13 In State of Karnataka V. N. Gangaraj (2020) 3 SCC 423 the apex Court has categorically stated that the Tribunal or High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the disciplinary authority by reappreciating evidence as if they were appellate authority. In the case on hand the enquiry officer has given detailed reasons for his findings that the petitioner has committed gross irregularity in passing the vouchers.
14 In that view of the matter, since it is not the contention of the respondents that the petitioner himself has misappropriated the funds, but only committed irregularity leading to misappropriation of Corporation’s funds and thereby causing loss to the public exchequer and also in view of the fact that the petitioner was not arrayed as an accused in criminal proceedings, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view in the matter.
15 Accordingly, the punishment of reduction of pay by two stages in time scale, as was imposed against the petitioner, is modified to the extent of reduction of pay by one stage in time scale. Excepting the above, in all other aspects, the writ petition fails.
16 With the above observation the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.