Madras High Court
M.Poomari vs Life Insurance Corporatin Of India] Had ... on 13 August, 2025
Bench: J.Nisha Banu, S.Srimathy
WA(MD). No.882 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 28/04/2025
Pronounced on : 13.08.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
AND
THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
WA(MD). No.882 of 2023
M.Poomari ... Appellant/Petitioner
v.
1.The Chairman
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Yogakshema Jeevan Bheema Marg,
Mumbai 21
2.The Zonal Manager,
Life Insurance corporation of India
South Zone, LIC Building
153 Anna Salai
Chennai 600 002.
3.The Senior Divisional Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India
Divisional Office “Jeevan Prakash”
Bridge Station Road, SellurMadurai 625 002. ... Respondents
PRAYER :- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters patent against the
order of this Court dated 17.10.2022 in WP(MD). No.14260 of 2020.
1/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 03:51:58 pm )
WA(MD). No.882 of 2023
For Appellants : Ms.J.Anandhavalli
For Respondents : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by J.NISHA BANU, J.) This intra Court Appeal has been directed against the order passed by the Writ Court, dated 17.10.2022 made in W.P(MD)No.14260 of 2020. The writ petitioner is the appellant herein.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:
(i) The writ petitioner was appointed as Sub Staff in the respondent corporation on 24.08.1993 and subsequently, he was promoted as Record Clerk and thereafter as Assistant. He was working as Cashier at Rajapalayam from 01.07.2009 to 22.01.2014. While so, he was issued with a charge memo dated 05.03.2015 containing three articles of charge. The writ petitioner has submitted his explanation and not being satisfied with the same, Enquiry officer was appointed and the enquiry report was submitted stating that the charges have been proved.
2/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 03:51:58 pm ) WA(MD). No.882 of 2023
(ii) Petitioner/appellant given further representation, on which, show cause notice dated 02.03.2016 was issued proposing punishment of dismissal from service and also recovery of the misappropriated amount.
(iii) The writ petitioner/appellant given reply dated 30.03.2016. On 31.03.2016, he was dismissed from service. Against which, he filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent.
(iv) However, the 2nd respondent vide order dated 07.12.2016 set aside the punishment imposed on the petitioner and remitted the case back to the Disciplinary Authority with a direction to hold de novo enquiry.
(v) Enquiry was once again conducted and the Enquiry Officer submitted report dated 10.11.2017 holding that all the charges framed against the writ petitioner have been proved.
3/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 03:51:58 pm ) WA(MD). No.882 of 2023
(vi) The writ petitioner submitted his objection to the enquiry report. After issuing show cause notice and and getting the writ petitioner's explanation, once again he was visited with the punishment of dismissal from service on 11.05.2018.
(vii) Challenging the said dismissal order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent. The second respondent vide order dated 11.02.2019 confirmed the punishment of dismissal, however, modified the recovery of amount by reducing the said sum from Rs.1,18,116/- to Rs.1,707/-.
(viii) Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Memorial dated 13.08.2019 before the first respondent/Chairman. However, vide the order impugned in the writ petition, the first respondent confirmed the order passed by the appellate authority. Challenging the same, Writ Petition (MD)No.14260 of 2020 has been filed.
3. The Writ Court, vide order dated 17.10.2022, gone through the charges elaborately and pointed out that the writ petitioner had conducted himself in a 4/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 03:51:58 pm ) WA(MD). No.882 of 2023 most inappropriate manner and observed as follows:-
“ I fail to understand as to how the cheque signed by one Sathiyababu could have been presented towards the policy renewal of Vellaichamy. The employer was justified in coming to the conclusion that the premium amount paid by Vellaichamy had been misappropriated. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2015) 2 SCC 341 [Diwan Singh Vs. Life Insurance Corporatin of India] had held that when the management of financial institution had lost confidence in its employee, the Court ought not to go by the amount of money misappropriated. The said decision applies fully to the case on hand. In fact, the management concluded that misappropriation was jointly committed. That is why the petitioner was not directed to pay the entire amount of Rs. 5,000/-. The petitioner's share was quantified as Rs.1,707/-. Liability was evenly distributed. Kasirajan, the co-delinquent, was also dismissed. “
4. For better appreciation, the charges levelled against the writ petitioner are as follows:
5/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 03:51:58 pm ) WA(MD). No.882 of 2023
(i) Charge No.1 is in 4 parts. It alleges that the writ petitioner had indulged in temporary misappropriation.
(ii) As far as the Charge No.2-A is concerned, the allegation is that a sum of Rs.5,000/- was collected from one Vellaichamy by an office colleague by name Kasirajan and that the said amount was misappropriated; instead of remitting the said amount of Rs.5,000/- to the account of Vellaichamy, a cheque drawn by one Sathiyababu was presented. The said cheque subsequently bounced.
(iii) Charge 2-B is concerned, appellant has collected Rs.49,900 from one Suresh and on 31.03.2012 tendered a 3rd party cheque drawn on Syndicate Bank, Rajapalayam issued by the agent Rama alagu and the same has got dishonored.
5.. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that as far as misappropriation of the amount is concerned, the policy holders have not been examined, which itself vitiate the enquiry proceedings. The learned counsel would further submit that the appellant has received the cash long before the issuance of cheque and utilised the same and thereafter issued his cheque for 6/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 03:51:58 pm ) WA(MD). No.882 of 2023 honoring the policy. However, it is the stand of the respondent that on receiving the cash across his counter and he issued cheque. Therefore, it is her contention that there is no malafide on the part of the appellant. In order to help the policy holders and in order to raise the business of the respondent Corporation alone and in good faith, the appellant had received the cash that too after office hours and hence, it cannot be stated that the appellant had misappropriated the amounts of the policy holders and after some time, he issued cheque for honoring the same.
6. The second contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that acceptance of the third party cheque is the only admission of the appellant. However, this will not prove the charge of misappropriation. When there is no proof to establish the fact that the appellant had presented third party cheque and when it is not detrimental to the interest of the respondent-corporation, the appellant shall not be held liable/responsible. It is her contention that when such an issuance of third party cheque is against the guidelines, there is no direction to the appellant not to accept any third party cheques. 7/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 03:51:58 pm ) WA(MD). No.882 of 2023
7. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that as far as the charges against the appellant that he had betrayed the trust reposed on him and the appellant has not discharged his duties to the satisfaction of the corporation/organization, is concerned, the intention of the appellant is very clear and in order to help the policy holders only, the appellant received cash and paid the same on the very next day by cheque, though it is against the manual guidelines of the corporation. The cheque that is presented has been passed only after it is being passed by the higher authorities and hence, the question of violation of trust does not arise.
8. As far as the punishment of removal from service is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the date of alleged misconduct is from 2010-2013, whereas the charge memo has been issued only in the year 2015, ie., 05.03.2015. The appellant has also denied the temporary misappropriation of the policy amount of the policy holders, whereas, the appellant himself admitted the giving of his own cheques and acceptance of third party cheque in the enquiry conducted on 04.09.2015. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that when there is no complaint against the appellant by any of the agents, the proceedings itself is 8/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 03:51:58 pm ) WA(MD). No.882 of 2023 vitiated.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that an inference can also be drawn as stated by the appellant in his grounds that for the letter given by Kasirajan dated 04.02.2014, where at that point of time, Kasirajan was also facing disciplinary proceedings and the so called letter has been given only for the sake of the respondent. It is relevant to note that for the letter dated 22.01.2014, Kasirajan has given a reply on 04.02.2014, however, the letter dated 22.01.2014 has not been marked as a document and hence, in the absence of letter dated 22.01.2014, the letter dated 04.02.2014 cannot be accepted as an evidence to take action against the appellant.
10. The learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the respondent themselves annexed a circular dated 05.08.2014 in their typed set of papers, which categorically admit the procedure of accepting third party cheque and hence, there is no prohibition in accepting the third party cheque and if the circular is taken note of, then the charge against the appellant has no legs to stand.
9/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 03:51:58 pm ) WA(MD). No.882 of 2023
11. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the circular is dated 05.08.2014, whereas, the acceptance of third party cheque had happened before the said circular dated 05.08.2014 and hence, this charge of acceptance of third party cheque, which is said to be against the guidelines, also cannot be accepted. The circular is dated 05.08.2014, ie., much after the acceptance of the third party cheque and hence, the appellant cannot be held guilty for the charges framed against him. Even as per the circular dated 28.02.2003, which has been annexed in the typed set of papers by the respondent, there is no total prohibition for acceptance of third party cheque and the same can be permitted with the approval of the higher officials. In the case of the appellant is concerned, it is the submission of the learned counsel that the third party cheque has been presented only after the concurrence of the higher officials.
12. The learned counsel for the appellant further contend that when assistance was sought for by the appellant to have the help of co-employee to assist him in the disciplinary proceedings, the same has been denied and it shows the discrimination of the respondent towards the appellant. The charges were framed after a long period and hence, the disciplinary proceedings are 10/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 03:51:58 pm ) WA(MD). No.882 of 2023 vitiated on the ground of delay also.
13. The learned counsel would submit that it is not the case of the respondent that the amount so received from the policy holders have not been credited to the corporation. All the amounts were received and at the permission of the higher officials, cheques have been deposited.
14. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the writ Court, while dismissing the writ petition, has categorically given a finding that breach of procedure is apparent and hence, the proceedings is vitiated. For all these reasons, the learned counsel prays for interference to the order of the writ Court.
15. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent Corporation made the following submissions:
The time gap between the date on which the cheque was drawn and was presented attracts delinquencies and issuance of self cheques as well as third party cheques in respect of the cash collected in total under different policy 11/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 03:51:58 pm ) WA(MD). No.882 of 2023 numbers led to the conclusion that the appellant with full knowledge withheld the said cash and remitted it later. Hence, the temporary misappropriation has been proved beyond reasonable doubts and hence, no interference is warranted to the order of the writ Court.
16. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the Disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority had come to the conclusion that the charges are proved. As far as the agent, he was imposed with a punishment of termination of agency with the forfeiture of renewal commission vide order dated 23.06.2016. It is further submitted that the co-delinquent, viz., Kasirajan was also imposed with a punishment of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs.1,707/- was also ordered vide order dated 31.03.2016.
17. It is contended that as far as the disciplinary proceedings are concerned, scope in judicial interference into the adequacy of evidence is very limited as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision 12/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 03:51:58 pm ) WA(MD). No.882 of 2023 reported in 1995(6) SCC 749 [B.S.CHATURVEDI VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS], wherein, it has been categorically held that the disciplinary authority is the sole judge of the facts. The said proposition was relied upon by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in WA. No.2830/2021 dated 25.07.2024. In yet another judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2015 (2) SCC 341 [Diwan Singh Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others], had held that it is not the amount of money misappropriated but it is the loss of confidence. For all these reasons, he contended that no interference is warranted to the well considered order of the writ Court and prays for dismissal of the writ appeal.
18. By way of reply, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there are variations between the statement given by the policy holders and the charge memo. When there are two versions available through Kasirajan, ie., one during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings against him and another was after the disposal, the 2nd charge/2A is to be held to be not proved against the appellant. When there is no temporary misappropriation except ignorance, the losing faith cannot be taken as a ground.
13/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 03:51:58 pm ) WA(MD). No.882 of 2023
19. We have considered the rival submissions made by either side and perused the materials available on record.
20. The issues to be decided in the present writ appeal is as to whether the act of the appellant can be stated as misconduct when the appellant accepted third party cheque in respect of policy holders that too only in the interest of customer. The stand of the respondent Corporation is that there is no total prohibition for acceptance of third-party cheque but the same can be accepted by following certain procedures. In the circular dated 05.08.2014 and 28.02.2003, it is stated that there is no total prohibition for acceptance of third- party cheque but the same can be permitted with the approval of senior official. Therefore, acceptance of third-party cheque is with the permission of the higher official and in as much as the charge having not framed immediately after the issuance of appellant and acceptance of third-party cheques but only after 2 ½ years, it is clear that there is no loss caused to the Corporation and further more, in the disciplinary proceedings, the charge of misappropriation has not been proved by the respondents.
14/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 03:51:58 pm ) WA(MD). No.882 of 2023
21. There is no temporary misappropriation as the entire facts, charges and the findings could go to prove only that premium payments has been deposited by the appellant in the form of cheques and there was no prohibition for the same and neither the policy holders or agents nor the Corporation was at loss. Further it is the duty of the concerned Branch to verify the cheque and the policy and permitted the employee to deposit the cheque in the account of the corporation. Acceptance of third party cheque has been approved with the approval of senior official and it has been permitted by the respondent- Corporation. Therefore, the office of the respondent where the appellant was working had accepted such third-party cheques and for long time such practice was going on and the appellant cannot be found fault for the said act.
22. In the light of the foregoing discussion, it is very much apparent that none of the charge of misappropriation has been proved by the respondents and the writ court has categorically pointed out the management concluded in its enquiry report that the misappropriation was jointly committed. The writ court further found that it was the breach of procedure committed. In our considered view, the procedural breach in the respondent office cannot be accounted only as against the appellant as misconduct and therefore, the appellant's explanation 15/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 03:51:58 pm ) WA(MD). No.882 of 2023 and his plea merits acceptance. As such, the order of the writ court is set aside. The appellant's dismissal from service is disproportionate and therefore, the said punishment is set aside. The appellant is directed to be reinstated in service with applicable monetary benefits as per Rules of the Corporation.
23. The writ appeal is allowed on the above terms. No costs.
[J.N.B.,J] [S.S.Y.,J]
13.08.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
RR/nvsri
1.The Chairman
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Yogakshema Jeevan Bheema Marg,
Mumbai 21
2.The Zonal Manager,
Life Insurance corporation of India
South Zone, LIC Building
153 Anna Salai
Chennai 600 002.
3.The Senior Divisional Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India
Divisional Office “Jeevan Prakash”
Bridge Station Road, SellurMadurai 625 002.
16/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 03:51:58 pm )
WA(MD). No.882 of 2023
J.NISHA BANU, J
AND
S.SRIMATHY, J.
RR/nvsri
PRE-DELIVERY JUDGMENT
IN
WA.(MD) No.882 of 2023
Date : 13/08/2025
17/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 03:51:58 pm )