DIWAN SINGHversusLIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

                    [2015] 1 S.C.R. 1


                     DIWAN SINGH                             A
                           v.
   LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND
                       OTHERS
           (Civil Appeal No. 3655 of 2010)
                   JANUARY 5, 2015                           B

  [VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.]

     Service Law: Compulsory retirement - Misappropriation
of funds - Deposit of Rs: 533 by policy holder with the C
appellant-cashier on 13. 8. 1990 but the amount not deposited
with UC - Temporary embezzlement of Rs. 5331- for the period
13.08.1990 to 27.11.1990 and forging entry of Rs. 5331- in the
carbon copy of ledger sheet dated 13.08.1990 by the cashier
- Order of removal from service - High Court substituting D
punishment of compulsory retirement in place of removal
from service - On appeal, held: In view of nature of charge of
which the cashier was found guilty, the punishment of
compulsory retirement cannot be said to be harsh and
disproportionate - In such matters, no sympathy can be E
shown by the courts.

    Dismissing the appeal, the Court

     HELD: The plea of the appellant was that the amount
could not be credited by him on 13.8.1990 as the cash        F
actually paid by the policy holder on that day was short
and, as such the act on the part of the appellant was
bonafide. This explanation was not convincing, as the
cashier would not have issued a receipt without counting
the cash at the counter. Secondly, had the act on the part   G
of the appellant been bonafide, he would not have made
forged entry of Rs. 533/- in the carbon copy of ledger
sheet on 13.8.1990 between entry Nos. 12 and 13. As

                            1                                H
    2        SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2015] 1 S.C.R.


A  such, the finding of the enquiry officer holding the
    appellant guilty cannot be said to be against the evidence
    on record. The punishment cannot be said to be harsh
    or disproportionate to the guilt, in view of the nature of
    the charge of which the appellant is found guilty in the
B present case. In such matters no sympathy should be
    shown by the Courts. The amount misappropriated may
  . Ile small or large; it is the act of misappropriation that is
    relevant. [Paras 5, 6, 7 and 11] [4-G; 5-A-B, D; 7-B]

      Divisional Controller, N. E. K. R. TC v. M. Amaresh (2006)
C 6 SCC 187: 2006 (3) Suppl. SCR 585; Divisional Controller,
  KSRTC (NWKRTC) v. A. T. Mane (2005) 3 sec 254;
  Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal and Anr. v. State of
  Maharashtra (2013) 4 SCC 642:2013 (4) SCR 767;
  Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. v.
D Bajrang Lal (2014) 4 SCC 693: 2014 (3) _SCR 782 ;
  Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh v. Krishnan Behari and
  Ors. (1996) 2 sec 714:1996 (2) SCR 827 - relied on.

                      Case Law Reference :
E       2006 (3) Suppl. SCR 585 Relied on             Para 8
        (2005) 3 sec 254            Relied on         Para 9
        2013 (4) SCR 767            Relied on         Para 10

F       2014 (3) SCR 782            Relied on         Para 11
        1996 (2) SCR 827            Relied on         Para 11
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    3655 of 2010.
G
        From the Judgment and Order dated 27-08-2009 of the
    High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No.
    1167 of 1999.

        Gaurav Agrawal for the Appellant.
H
 DIWAN SINGH v. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION                     3
                   OF !NOIA
     Kailash Vasdev, A.V. Rangam, Buddy A. Ranganadhan for          A
the Respondents.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. 1. This appeal is directed
against judgment and order dated 27.8.2009, passed by the           B
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in Special Appeal No.
1167 of 1999, whereby said Court has partly allowed the
appeal, and S!Jbstituted the punishment of removal awarded to
the appellant, by compulsory retirement from service.
                                                                    c
    2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the papers on record.

     3. Briefly stated, the facts are that the appellant was a
cashier with Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter
referred to as "UC") and posted at Bilaspur, District Rampur        D
in U.P. A policy holder, Bhograj Singh, deposited with the
appellant an amount of Rs.533/- towards half yearly insurance
premium on 13.8.1990 but the same was not deposited with
LIC nor credited in the account of the policy holder till
27.11.1990, though a receipt was issued on 13.8.1990 by the         E
appellant. It appears that when the UC agent did not get his
commission out of the premium deposited, and made enquiries
in this regard, aforesaid amount of Rs.533/- was shown
deposited by the appellant with late fee of Rs.15.90/-, and entry
was made in the cash register on 28.11.1990. Also, a forged         F
entry was made in ledger sheet on back date. In connection with
the above misconduct on the part of the appellant, a charge-
sheet was served on him on 29.4.1991 on two counts, namely,
temporary embezzlement of Rs.533/- for the period 13.8.1990
to 27.11.1990, and forging entry of Rs.533/- in the carbon copy     G
of the ledger sheet dated 13.8.1990 between entry Nos. 12 and
 13. On conclusion of the departmental enquiry, the appellant
was found guilty, and served with copy of enquiry report,
whereafter he was removed from service vide order dated
21.1.1992. The departmental appeal appears to have been             H
    4         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015) 1 S.C.R.


A   dismissed by the authority concerned on 22.2.1992.

         4. Challenging the order of removal from service and that
    of the appellate authority, the appellant filed Civil Miscellaneous
    Writ Petition No. 10308 of 1999 before the High Court which
B   was allowed by the learned Single Judge on 6.9.1999.
    Aggrieved by said order of the learned Single Judge, Special
    Appeal was filed before Division Bench of the High Court, by
    the employer (i.e. - L.l.C.). The Division Bench, after hearing
    the parties, came to the conclusion that the appellant appears
    to have committed the forgery to cover his mistake, and partly
C   allowed the appeal by substituting punishment of compulsory
    retirement in place of removal from service. The appellant-
    employee has challenged the order of the Division Bench of
    the High Court by way of Special Leave Petition mainly on the
    ground that the punishment of compulsory retirement is
D   disproportionate, unreasonable and harsh. Leave was granted
    by this Court on 19.4.2010.

         5. Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant,
    drew our attention to Rule 23 of Life Insurance Corporation of
E   India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995, which reads as under:-

         "23. Forfeiture of service. - Resignation or dismissal or
         removal or termination or compulsory retirement of an
         employee from the service of the Corporation shall entail
         forfeiture of his entire past service and consequently shall
F        not qualify for pensionary benefits."

         It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that it is a
    case of temporary embezzlement of a small amount, as such
    awarding minor punishment of stoppage of increment etc. would
G   have met the ends of justice. It is also submitted before us that
    the amount could not be credited by the appellant on 13.8.1990
    as the cash actually paid by the policy holder on that day was
    short, as such the act on the part of the appellant was bonafide.

         6. We have given thoughtful consideration to the above
H
 DIWAN SINGH v. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION                      5
       OF INDIA [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.]

argument advanced on behalf of the appellant. The explanation        A
put forth does not appear to be convincing, as the cashier would
not have issued a receipt without counting the cash at the
counter. Secondly, had the act" on the part of the appellant been
bonafide, he would not have made forged entry of Rs.533/- in
the carbon copy of ledger sheet on 13.8.1990 between entry           B
Nos. 12 and 13. As such, the finding of the enquiry officer
holding the appellant guilty, in our opinion, cannot be said to
be against the evidence on record.

     7. As far as argument relating to quantum of punishment,
as modified by the High Court, which results in consequential        C
forfeiture of pensionary benefits in view of Rule 23, quoted
above, is concerned, we do not find the punishment to be harsh
or disproportionate to the guilt, in view of the nature of the
charge of which the appellant is found guilty in the present case.
Time and again, this Court has consistently held that in such        D
matters no sympathy should be shown by the Courts.

     8. In Divisional Controller, N.E.K.R. TC v. M. Amaresh1,
this Court, in para 18 of the judgment has expressed the views
on this point as under:                                              E

      " In the instant case, the misa[)propriation of the funds by
      the delinquent employee was only Rs 360.95. This Court
      has considered the punishment that may be awarded to
      the delinquent employees who misappropriated the funds
      of the Corporation and the factors to be considered. This      F
      Court in a catena of judgments held that the loss of
      confidence is the primary factor and not the amount of
      money misappropriated and that the sympathy or
      generosity cannot be a factor which is impermissible in
      law. When an employee is found guilty of pilferage or of       G
      misappropriating the Corporation's funds, there is nothing
      wrong in the Corporation losing confidence or faith in such
      an employee and awarding punishment of dismissal. In

1.   (2006)6 sec 187.                                                H
    6          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2015] 1 S.C.R.


A         such cases, there is no place for generosity or misplaced
          sympathy on the part of the judicial forums and interfering
          therefore with the quantum of punishment. ............... ".

        9. In Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) v. A. T.
    Mane 2 in which unaccounted amount was only Rs.93/- this
B   Court expressed its opinion in para 12 as under:
          " Coming to the question of quantum of punishment, one
          should bear in mind the fact that it is not the amount of
          money misappropriated that becomes a primary factor for
          awarding punishment; on the contrary, it is the loss of
c
          confidence which is the primary factor to be taken into
          consideration. In our opinion, when a person is found guilty
          of misappropriating the corporation's funds, there is
          nothing wrong in the corporation losing confidence or faith
          in such a person and awarding a punishment of
D
          dismissal".
        10. In Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal and another v.
    State of Maharashtra 3 , this Court has made following
    observations in paragraph 25 of the judgment: -
E         " ..... In the present day scenario, corruption has been
          treated to have the potentiality of corroding the marrows
          of the economy. There are cases where the amount is
          small, and in certain cases, it is extremely high. The gravity
          of the offence in such a case, in our considered opinion,
F         is not to be adjudged on the bedrock of the quantum of
          bribe. An attitude to abuse the official position to extend
          favour in lieu of benefit is a crime against the collective
          and an anathema to the basic tenets of democracy, for it
          erodes the faith of the people in the system. It creates an
G         incurable concavity in the Rule of Law .... "

    2.   (2005) 3 sec 254.
    3.   (2013) 4 sec 642
    4.   (2014) 4 sec 693
H   5.   (1996) 2 sec 714
 DIWAN SINGH v. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION                     7
       OF INDIA [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.]
      11. In Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and        A
another v. Bajrang La/4, this Court, following the case of
Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh v. Krishnan Behari and
others 5 , has opined that in cases involving corruption there
cannot be any other punishment than dismissal. It has been
further held that any sympathy shown in such cases is totally      B
uncalled for and opposed to public interest. The amount
misappropriated may be small or large; it i_s the act of
misappropriation that is relevant. In said case (Rajasthan
SRTC), the respondenUemployee was awarded punishment of
removal from service. In the present case it is compulsory         C
retirement. Learned counsel for respondents submitted that on
earlier occasion, appellant was awarded minor punishment, for
his misconduct, regarding defalcation of stamps. And now he
is found guilty for the second time.

      12. Therefore, in the above circumstances in view of the     D
law laid down by this Court, as above, we are not inclined to
interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Devika Gujral                                  Appeal dismissed.