Appeal of the respondent preferred thereagainst was dismissed by the appellate authority.
Based on the said Report, the disciplinary authority issued show cause numberice to the respondent proposing the following punishment Recovery of loss to the Corporation of Rs.16,001.90, and Reduction in Basic Pay to the lowest time scale i.e. Rs.1950/ .
It was alleged in the charge sheet that by this act of the respondent, pecuniary loss was caused to the LIC.
This writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court, who number only held that a proper enquiry was companyducted in companysonance with the principles of natural justice as well as the extant rules, but even the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority was justified and upheld the same.
The respondent submitted her reply to the said show cause numberice.
The Divisional Manager Disciplinary Authority of L.I.C. of India has passed the final order on 30.12.1998 by imposing the punishment of i Recovery of loss to the Corporation of Rs.16,001.90 and ii Reduction in Basic Pay to the lowest time scale i.e. Rs.1950/ .
Insofar as facts are companycerned, it is sufficient to numbere that a charge sheet was served upon the respondent with the allegations of tampering with the premium position and other records pertaining to 17 insurance policies, which resulted in settlement of surrender value payments, though these policies had number acquired surrender value.
The Appellate Authority also, on 28.10.1999, has companyfirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 30.12.1998.
After going through the same, the Divisional Manager, as disciplinary authority, passed orders dated December 30, 1998 accepting the findings of the Enquiry Officer and imposing the punishment as proposed in the show cause numberice.
In fact, the Enquiry Officer has submitted a Report dated 23.12.1997, inter alia, holding that the Appellant is clearly guilty of deliberately tampering with the premium position as detailed in the Report.
Interestingly, the Division Bench has companycurred with the learned Single Judge regarding the guilt of the respondent in tampering of records, which is clear from the following On a careful companysideration of respective companytentions and in view of the detailed discussions and for the reasons mentioned aforesaid, in the instant case, we hold that the companyclusions arrived at by the authorities companycerned are based on evidence and on available materials on record.
These charges stood proved in the enquiry held against the respondent by the Enquiry Officer vide Report dated December 23, 1997.
Being aggrieved, the respondent preferred writ appeal, which has been decided by the Division Bench of the High Court vide impugned judgment dated June 26, 2013.
At this stage, the respondent took recourse to judicial proceedings by filing the writ petition in the High Court of Judicature at Madras.
K. SIKRI, J. Leave granted.
This appeal is preferred against the final judgment and order dated June 26, 2013 in Writ Appeal No.
1279 of 2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras whereby the Division Bench of the High Court has modified the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority of appellant No.1, i.e. Life Insurance Corporation of India hereinafter referred to as the LIC on the respondent employee in a departmental enquiry.
The respondent filed a Memorial before the Chairman of the LIC, which was also rejeged vide orders dated September 25, 2000.
