IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 6977 of 2007
Ajay Prasad ...... Petitioner
Vrs.
Life Insurance Corporation
of India, Mumbai & ors. ...... Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR SINHA
---------
For the petitioner: Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate
For the respondents: Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate
---------
05/ 20.11.2008
This writ petition has been preferred for issuance of an
appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order
dated 29th March, 2007, passed by respondent no.3, whereby,
the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and
the order of punishment dated 25th March, 2006, passed by
respondent no.4, has been affirmed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
impugned appellate order has never been challenged before
this Court. However, it is submitted that previous writ petition
being W.P.(S) No. 5870 of 2006 was dismissed as withdrawn
by order dated 4.12.2006.
It is submitted that on 3rd August, 2004 the petitioner
was served with a charge sheet issued under the signature of
respondent no.4, inter alia, on the allegation that while he was
working as Assistant in New Business Department of
Katrasgarh Branch, he arranged to lodge and raise a false
death claim liability in the books of the Corporation on the life
of Om Prakash Mondal, who was alive. He took initiative in
processing the said death claim of Rs.1,11,260/- on behalf of
Smt. Draupadi Devi in connivance with Smt. Munna Devi and
he illegally introduced his grandmother impersonating
Draupadi Devi by opening an S/B Account with Gunduwa
PACS Limited on 19.3.2002 and witnessed the withdrawal of
Rs.50,000/- out of Rs.1,11,260/- and on detection he
managed to deposit Rs.50,000/- only in the name of Draupadi
Devi in the said account.
On the basis of such allegation, it was contended that
the petitioner failed to maintain absolute integrity and
devotion to his duty and violated the provisions of Regulations
21, 24 read with Regulation 39(1) of the LIC of India (Staff)
Regulations, 1960.
2.
Pursuant to the order passed by this Court the
petitioner was afforded full opportunity and each and every
contention, including Section 46 of the LIC of India (Staff)
Regulations, 1960 was considered by the appellate authority
in the appeal.
In view of concurrent finding of fact, based on evidence,
this Court cannot interfere with the impugned order in a writ
jurisdiction as an appellate authority to re-appreciate the
same.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
this writ petition being devoid of any merits is here by
dismissed but without any order as to costs.
(Ajit Kumar Sinha, J.)
A.K.Verma/