JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Saurav Shekhar, counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Sachin Kumar, for the respondent Life Insurance Corporation of India. 2. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing of the order of punishment dated 31.1.2013 and appellate order dated 17.9.2013. 3. Petitioner joined the services of respondents on 02.03.1992 as Assistant and was promoted to the post of H.G.A. and subsequently transferred to the Branch situated at Sindri on 28.10.2010. While petitioner was posted as H.G.A. a memorandum of charge was served upon the petitioner on 12.10.2011 alleging gross irregularities, which are as under: “(i) The CSE, while working as HGA (Sales), Dhanbad Branch 2, used password of Shri S.Y. Bhatt, the ABM (S) and Sri K.K. Das also the then ABM(S) for entering and validating wrong Commission payments through Add Pay Menu of FEAP. (ii) He was instrumental in making commission payment to the tune of Rs. 15,99,416/- without any supporting paper to 11 agents. (iii) He used to approach the agents to whom these wrongful payments were made, to give amount to him for refunding the excess payments made to LIC. But he neither deposited the amount nor gave any receipt and thus, kept the amount with him for his personal gain. These amounts were refunded on a later date. (iv) He had declared income from salary as sole source of income and his wife had declared that husband’s income was her sole source of income when he was asked to furnish details of all bank accounts owned and operated by him or his wife individually or jointly. But he vide his letter dated 20.12.2010 did not disclose the bank account maintained by his wife which shows transactions much beyond his declared source of income. That undisclosed bank account showed heavy withdrawal on the date on which most of the amounts were refunded to LIC.” The petitioner was asked to file reply to the charges. He replied denying the allegations contained in the charges. Subsequently, Departmental Proceeding was initiated and the petitioner was asked to appear before the Enquiry Officer. Petitioner appeared in the Enquiry Proceeding and subsequently, enquiry report has been submitted in which the Enquiry Officer stated that the charges against the petitioner have been proved. The petitioner was asked to reply to the second show-cause, which the petitioner did. Subsequently, Departmental Proceeding was initiated and the petitioner was asked to appear before the Enquiry Officer. Petitioner appeared in the Enquiry Proceeding and subsequently, enquiry report has been submitted in which the Enquiry Officer stated that the charges against the petitioner have been proved. The petitioner was asked to reply to the second show-cause, which the petitioner did. Reply of the petitioner to the second show cause was not accepted and the Disciplinary Authority passed the punishment order by way of reduction in the basic pay to the minimum of scale of HGA in terms of Regulation 39 (1) (d) of the LIC Staff Regulation, 1960. Thereafter, petitioner preferred an appeal and the Appellate Authority affirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority and the appeal was rejected vide order dated 17.9.2013. Aggrieved with the aforesaid two orders, petitioner preferred this writ petition. 4. Mr. Saurav Shekhar, appearing for the petitioner, assailed the impugned orders on the ground that the Principles of Natural Justice has not been followed in this case. He draws the attention of this Court to the charges and submits that the authorities issued the charge sheet with a preoccupied mind and he further submits that contents of the third last paragraph of the charge-sheet shows that the decision was already taken to punish the petitioner. The second limb of argument of Mr. Shekhar is that the documents, which the petitioner demanded, were not supplied and accordingly, the enquiry is vitiated. He draws the attention of this Court to letter dated 30.01.2011, whereby the petitioner has requested for supply of certain documents. He further submits that those documents were not supplied. Particularly referring to serial nos. 5, 6, 7 of the list, he submits that these are the documents which were necessary to defend the petitioner and they were not supplied and therefore, the Enquiry Proceeding is vitiated. He also draws the attention of this Court to the evidence of one of the witnesses, namely Ms. Salma Parveen, who happens to be an agent, and referring to certain questions and answers, he submits that she has supported the case of the petitioner and he stresses on the statement of the witness that she has not met this petitioner. He also draws the attention of this Court to the evidence of one of the witnesses, namely Ms. Salma Parveen, who happens to be an agent, and referring to certain questions and answers, he submits that she has supported the case of the petitioner and he stresses on the statement of the witness that she has not met this petitioner. He also draws the attention of this Court to the finding of the Enquiry officer, wherein it is stated that all the charges, despite dearth of documentary evidences, have been found proved. Referring to this, he submits that from the finding of the Enquiry Officer, it is crystal clear that the documents which the petitioner demanded were not served. The main emphasis of Mr. Saurav Shekhar, counsel appearing for the petitioner, is on the Principles of Natural Justice, which has not been followed in this case and accordingly, the punishment orders are not sustained in the eye of law. To substantiate his argument, he relies on the case of V.K. Ashokan vs. Assistant Excise Commissioner and Others, (2009) 14 SCC 85 , paragraph 50 of which is quoted hereunder: “In K.I. Shephard vs. Union of India this Court observed: (SCC p. 449, para 16) “16.......It is common experience that once a decision has been taken, there is a tendency to uphold it and a representation may not really yield any fruitful purpose.” Secondly, because when an authority has already made up his mind, the formality of complying with the principles of natural justice may be held to be a nominal and sham one.” Counsel for the petitioner submits that once a decision has been taken, there is a tendency to uphold it, which has happened in the case of the petitioner. He further relies on the case of Narinder Mohan Arya vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 713 , Paragraph 26, which is quoted hereunder: “26. In our opinion the learned Single Judge and consequently the Division Bench of the High Court did not pose unto themselves the correct question. The matter can be viewed from two angles. Despite limited jurisdiction a civil court, it was entitled to interfere in a case where the report of the enquiry officer is based on no evidence. In our opinion the learned Single Judge and consequently the Division Bench of the High Court did not pose unto themselves the correct question. The matter can be viewed from two angles. Despite limited jurisdiction a civil court, it was entitled to interfere in a case where the report of the enquiry officer is based on no evidence. In a suit filed by a delinquent employee in a civil court as also a writ court, in the event the findings arrived at in the departmental proceedings are questioned before it, it should keep in mind the following: (1) The enquiry officer is not permitted to collect any material from outside sources during the conduct of enquiry. (State of Assam vs. Mahendra Kumar Das) (2) In a domestic enquiry fairness in the procedure is a part of the principles of natural justice. (Khem Chand vs. Union of India and State of U.P. vs. Om Prakash Gupta) (3) Exercise of discretionary power involves two elements (i) objective and (ii) subjective and existence of the exercise of an objective element is a condition precedent for exercise of the subjective element. (K.L. Tripathi vs. State Bank of India) (4) It is not possible to lay down any rigid rules of the principles of natural justice which depend on the facts and circumstances of each case but the concept of fair play in action is the basis. (Sawai Singh vs. State of Rajasthan) (5) The enquiry officer is not permitted to travel beyond the charges and any punishment imposed on the basis of a finding which was not the subject-matter of the charges is wholly illegal. (Director [Inspection & Quality Control] Export Inspection Council of India vs. Kalyan Kumar Mitra) (6) Suspicion or presumption cannot take the place of proof even in a domestic enquiry. The writ court is entitled to interfere with findings of the fact of any tribunal or authority in certain circumstances. (Central Bank of India Ltd. vs. Prakash Chand Jain and Kuldeep Singh vs. Commr. of Police.)” Relying on the aforesaid decision, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in a domestic enquiry fairness in the procedure is a part of Principles of Natural Justice. Placing reliance on these two judgments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the facts of the present case, the Enquiry Proceeding is vitiated as Principles of Natural Justice has not been followed. 5. Placing reliance on these two judgments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the facts of the present case, the Enquiry Proceeding is vitiated as Principles of Natural Justice has not been followed. 5. Per contra, Mr. Sachin Kumar, appearing for Life Insurance Corporation of India, submits that on perusal of those paragraphs in the chargesheet, on which learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance, it is not clear as to how it could be said that the authority had acted with a preoccupied mind. It is submitted that it is a well settled proposition of law that the charges need to be explained in clear terms and the paragraphs specifically provides that on which Regulation of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, the charges against the petitioner is issued. He further submits that by merely referring to the aforesaid paragraph, it cannot be said that authority concerned has acted with a preoccupied mind. Mr. Sachin also relies on the evidence of the same witness, namely Ms. Salma Parween, on which counsel for the petitioner relied. He took this Court to certain statement of that witness and submits that the witness has stated in clear terms that the excess payment was refunded to Shri K.N. Singh, who is the petitioner in this writ petition. He further submits that in a Departmental Proceeding, if even a single witness proves the charges against the petitioner, it is sufficient to come to a finding that the charges against the petitioner have been proved. He further submits that the pari materia of departmental proceeding and criminal proceeding is different. In the departmental proceeding only preponderance of submissions are considered and it is not necessary that charges are to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts. He took this Court to the punishment order and referring to the contention of the petitioner, which has been considered in the punishment order and finding of the Disciplinary Authority, submits that the petitioner was provided full opportunity to be heard before the Disciplinary Authority. He also draws the attention of this Court to the order of the Appellate Authority and submits that Appellate Authority has also provided full opportunity to the petitioner and by full application of mind the Appellate Authority has confirmed the order of punishment. He submits that there is no illegality so far as order of punishment is concerned. He also draws the attention of this Court to the order of the Appellate Authority and submits that Appellate Authority has also provided full opportunity to the petitioner and by full application of mind the Appellate Authority has confirmed the order of punishment. He submits that there is no illegality so far as order of punishment is concerned. He further submits that the High Courts, under Article 226, are very slow in interfering with the Departmental Proceeding when it is found that the proceeding is not vitiated. To substantiate his argument he relies on B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 (Para 12 and 13) which is quoted as under: “12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof on fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case. 13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to re-appreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. In Union of India vs. H.C. Goel this Court held at p. 728 that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued.” On the point of proportionality of the punishment, he relies on the case of L.I.C. vs. S. Vasanthi, (2014) 9 SCC 315 Paragraph 11, 12 and 13 and submits that almost similar punishment was inflicted upon the petitioner in that case and the findings of the Division Bench of the High Court has been reversed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority was restored. It has further been submitted by counsel for the respondents that in deciding the punishment, the Disciplinary Authority has not relied on the documents which the petitioner demanded. 6. Argument of Mr. Sachin was rebutted by way of reply submitted by Mr. Saurav Shekhar that the petitioner is not challenging the punishment order to the effect as to whether it is proportionate or disproportionate to the charges. He further submits that the case of the petitioner is based on the point as to whether Principles of Natural Justice has been followed in this case or not and his right to defend himself by way of procurement of those documents which were relatable to charges. 7. He further submits that the case of the petitioner is based on the point as to whether Principles of Natural Justice has been followed in this case or not and his right to defend himself by way of procurement of those documents which were relatable to charges. 7. Having heard counsel appearing for the parties, this Court is not inclined to interfere as it has come in the evidence that a substantial amount of transaction has taken place from the account of the wife of the petitioner. The refund of the excess payment on account of commission is also established. The Officers of an Insurance and Investment Company like Life Insurance Corporation of India is required to exercise high standard of integrity and honesty and take all possible steps to protect the interest of their policy holders with due diligence and do nothing which is detrimental to the interest of the company as well as its policy holders. 8. So far as the arguments of the learned counsel of the petitioner is concerned that the Principal of Natural justice was not followed, this court has found that Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority have given ample opportunity to the petitioner to present his case and thus, it appears that the Principles of Natural Justice has been followed in this case. 9. As a cumulative effect of above facts and reasons, this writ petition fails. 10. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. I.A. No. 6108 of 2016 11. In the light of final order passed in this writ petition, this Interlocutory Application also stands dismissed.