it2025_00332 — Forgery of even small amount by a Cashier, herein, a Cashier of LIC (Life Insurance Corporation of India), results in loss of confidence on the official who had caused forgery and his action cannot be condoned. But the punishment of removal from service by Law and the department is modified as compulsory retirement as the amount is small and the misappropriation is limited to a short period

IT Rules

Forgery of even small amount by a Cashier, herein, a Cashier of LIC (Life Insurance Corporation of India), results in loss of confidence on the official who had caused forgery and his action cannot be condoned. But the punishment of removal from service by Law and the department is modified as compulsory retirement as the amount is small and the misappropriation is limited to a short period — Case decision in Diwan Singh v. LIC of India: The Apex Court upheld the Compulsory Retirement of a Cashier guilty of forgery, stating that it was not disproportionate to his guilt as loss of confiden... — Facts : The Appellant herein, a Cashier with Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC), posted at Bilaspur, Rampur District of UP failed to deposit the Insurance Premium paid by the Appellant amounting to ₹ 533 on 13-8-1990 till 27-11-1990 though a receipt was issued to the Appellant on 13-8-1990. Since the LIC agent did not get his commission of the premium deposited, he found that the said amount paid by the Appellant was deposited with late fee of ₹ 15.90 for which entry was made on 28-11-1990 with the back-dated entry. Hence, the Cashier was charge-sheeted for embezzlement of ₹ 533. An enquiry was conducted and based on that enquiry, the Appellant was removed from service by Order, dated 21-1-1992. That order was challenged before the High Court. A single member bench of the High Court allowed the case on 6-9-1999 filed by the Applicant. Aggrieved by that, LIC appealed against that judgment before a Division Bench which allowed the appeal partly by changing the removal to that of compulsory retirement as the appellant appears to have committed forgery to cover his mistake. Hence the present appeal is filed before the Apex Court on the ground that the punishment of compulsory retirement is disproportionate, unreasonable and harsh compared to the crime committed. The leave was granted on 19-4-2010. Appellant drew the attention of Apex Court of Rule 23 of LIC of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995 which states that the punishment of removal or compulsory retirement will entail the forfeiture of the entire past service of the employee and he will not qualify for pensionary benefits.

IT Rules

Forgery of even small amount by a Cashier, herein, a Cashier of LIC (Life Insurance Corporation of India), results in loss of confidence on the official who had caused forgery and his action cannot be condoned. But the punishment of removal from service by Law and the department is modified as compulsory retirement as the amount is small and the misappropriation is limited to a short period — Case decision in Diwan Singh v. LIC of India: The Apex Court upheld the Compulsory Retirement of a Cashier guilty of forgery, stating that it was not disproportionate to his guilt as loss of confiden... — Facts : The Appellant herein, a Cashier with Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC), posted at Bilaspur, Rampur District of UP failed to deposit the Insurance Premium paid by the Appellant amounting to ₹ 533 on 13-8-1990 till 27-11-1990 though a receipt was issued to the Appellant on 13-8-1990. Since the LIC agent did not get his commission of the premium deposited, he found that the said amount paid by the Appellant was deposited with late fee of ₹ 15.90 for which entry was made on 28-11-1990 with the back-dated entry. Hence, the Cashier was charge-sheeted for embezzlement of ₹ 533. An enquiry was conducted and based on that enquiry, the Appellant was removed from service by Order, dated 21-1-1992. That order was challenged before the High Court. A single member bench of the High Court allowed the case on 6-9-1999 filed by the Applicant. Aggrieved by that, LIC appealed against that judgment before a Division Bench which allowed the appeal partly by changing the removal to that of compulsory retirement as the appellant appears to have committed forgery to cover his mistake. Hence the present appeal is filed before the Apex Court on the ground that the punishment of compulsory retirement is disproportionate, unreasonable and harsh compared to the crime committed. The leave was granted on 19-4-2010. Appellant drew the attention of Apex Court of Rule 23 of LIC of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995 which states that the punishment of removal or compulsory retirement will entail the forfeiture of the entire past service of the employee and he will not qualify for pensionary benefits.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text