ORDER : 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings dated 18.03.2010 issued by the 2ndrespondent and the consequent proceedings dated 23.06.2010. The petitioner was dismissed from service vide proceedings dated 18.03.2010 and the 1st respondent confirmed the punishment vide proceedings dated 23.06.2010. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Administrative Officer in the respondent/corporation in the year 1992 through Direct Recruitment. The petitioner was promoted as an Administrative Officer in the year 1996. Vide proceedings dated 09.09.2005 the petitioner was suspended based on certain allegations. A charge memo was issued on 03.04.2007 whereby the petitioner is alleged to have tampered with the policies of the customers of the corporation. It is the specific allegation against the petitioner that he had indulged in tampering with the vital fields in the insurance policies of customers such as plan and term, sum assured, premium, FUP, Age, name and status etc., It is also alleged that loan payment vouchers were processed and thereby caused financial loss to the respondent/corporation. 3. Along with the charge-sheet of the respondent/corporation dated 13.04.2007 Annexure-A of the charge sheet relates to the various documents relied upon by the respondent/corporation. Annexure-B contains the provisional list of witnesses. 4. The petitioner after receipt of the charge sheet issued a reply dated 18.04.2007and sought for copies of the documents. The respondent/corporation issued a reply to the letter of the petitioner and informed that the copies of the documents shall be furnished during enquiry proceedings. The letter dated 14.05.2007 addressed by the respondent was not considered by the respondent on the reply dated 18.04.2007 of the petitioner. The petitioner had made several representations seeking the requisite documents to enable him to submit his defence. The several representations and requests are part of record. However, there was no response from the respondent/corporation. The petitioner was found guilty by the enquiry officer of the allegations alleged and as such the petitioner was dismissed from service vide proceedings dated 18.03.2010. 5. The petitioner appealed against the said order before the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent had dismissed the appeal vide order dated 23.06.2010. 6. The order dated 18.03.2010 is perused. The petitioner was imposed the punishment of dismissal from service and also recovery of Rs.9,14,896/- in terms of regularizations 39(1)(g) and 39(1)(c) respectively of the LIC of India (Staff Regulations) 1960. 6. The order dated 18.03.2010 is perused. The petitioner was imposed the punishment of dismissal from service and also recovery of Rs.9,14,896/- in terms of regularizations 39(1)(g) and 39(1)(c) respectively of the LIC of India (Staff Regulations) 1960. Upon perusal of the impugned proceedings, it is mentioned that copies of all documents relied upon by the prosecution were handed over to the petitioner during the first hearing only. It is pertinent to mention the date of the charge-sheet as 03.04.2007 and also the date of commencement of enquiry as 29.03.2008. On the strength of the evidence of PW.1 i.e., Ch.Muttaiah, the then Branch Manager, CAB, Kakinada has confirmed that the signatures and initials on some of the documents mentioned in the Annexure A of the Charge Sheet are that of the petitioner. 7. There appears to have been no reference to third party expert to either compare the signatures, initials of the charge-sheeted officer and the charges were found to be proved based on the evidence of PW.1, who appears to have concluded that the signatures and the initials belong to the petitioner. 8. The appeal against the said proceedings was dismissed upholding the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority of dismissal of the petitioner from service and recovery of Rs.9,14,896/-and concluded that the punishment is commensurate with gravity of misconduct of which the petitioner was found guilty of the offences charged. 9. The respondents/corporation has filed a detailed counter and have submitted that there is no infirmity in the procedure adopted before the enquiry officer. It is stated that the petitioner was found guilty of the charges only after conducting a detailed enquiry and that the petitioner had indulged in serious offence of tampering with the vital details of policies of the customers of the respondent/corporation. The acts of the petitioner are definitely beyond the scope of his job profile and that the said acts have resulted in financial loss to the respondent/corporation. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance on the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Rules, 1960. Rule 46 pertains to consideration of appeals and submits that the appellate order dated 23.06.2010 is not in accordance with Rule 46 and the appellate authority has failed to comply with Rule 46(2)(a)(b)(c). 10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance on the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Rules, 1960. Rule 46 pertains to consideration of appeals and submits that the appellate order dated 23.06.2010 is not in accordance with Rule 46 and the appellate authority has failed to comply with Rule 46(2)(a)(b)(c). He submits that except reiterating what was found in the enquiry, the order does not comply with the rules and deserves to be set aside. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on S. Prathasarathi vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1974) 3 SCC 459 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “when the enquiry officer who conducted the enquiry was biased and fair opportunity was not given to the petitioner for defending himself in the enquiry.” The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Kashinath Dikshita vs. Union of India and Others, (1986) 3 SCC 229 . Wherein the appellants request for supply of relevant documents and statements of witnesses was refused. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has stated that no one facing a departmental enquiry can effectively meet the charges unless the copies of relevant statements and documents to be used against him are made available to him. In absence of such copies how can the concerned employee prepare his defence, cross-examine the witnesses and point out the inconsistencies. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited vs. Western Geco International Limited, (2014) 9 SCC 263 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: 38. Equally important and indeed fundamental to the policy of Indian law is the principle that a court and so also a quasi-judicial authority must, while determining the rights and obligations of parties before it, do so in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Besides the celebrated audi alteram partem rule one of the facets of the principles of natural justice is attendant facts and circumstances while taking a view one way or the other. Non-application of mind is a defect that is fatal to any adjudication. Application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of the mind and disclosure of mind is best done by recording reasons in support of the decision which the court or authority is taking. Non-application of mind is a defect that is fatal to any adjudication. Application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of the mind and disclosure of mind is best done by recording reasons in support of the decision which the court or authority is taking. The requirement that an adjudicatory authority must apply its mind is, in that view, so deeply embedded in our jurisprudence that it can be described as a fundamental policy of Indian law. 13. In the matter of S.N. Mukharjee vs. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 593 where the Five Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has considered the recording of reasons – Authority exercising quasi judicial function must record reasons for its decision irrespective of whether the decision is subject to Appeal, Revision or Judicial Review. This is one of the embodied rules of natural justice. 14. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are not only serious in nature, but have also impacted the reputation of an esteemed corporation. The respondent/corporation has gained the trust of millions of customers across the country and the acts of any employee tampering with the details in the policies belonging to the customers would definitely have serious repercussions. It is also submitted that the enquiry was conducted in all fair play and no infirmity can be pointed out either in the manner of conducting the enquiry or in following the principles of natural justice. 15. It is also submitted that the enquiry officer has proved five charges out of seven charges and a total financial loss of Rs.13,33,928/- was arrived and after adjusting the amount of Rs.3,79,990/- which was remitted by the petitioner, the total financial loss of Rs.9,14,896/- was sought to be recovered from the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that non-supply of documents mentioned in the charge-sheet is not fatal and that the same is adopted by the respondent/corporation in accordance with circular No. 147/1991, dated 06.11.1991, wherein the copies of material documents are supplied only after enquiry officer has been appointed and the hearings are commenced. It is submitted that the circular also provides for annexing only the provisional list of documents along with the charge-sheet. It is submitted that the circular also provides for annexing only the provisional list of documents along with the charge-sheet. The learned counsel for the respondent/corporation also placed on record the extract of relevant paragraph relating to Issue of charge-sheet from G.B.Sing’s Hand Book for Inquiry Officers, Presenting Officers and Defence Assistants and that it is a common practice to handover the charge-sheet along with only the list of annexure initially. 16. The learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that the scope in the writ petition to re-assess the evidence before the Enquiry Officer is very limited. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that as there is no material irregularity in the enquiry proceedings and that a fair opportunity was granted to the petitioner for reverting to the charges and also to place his case effectively before the Enquiry Officer. The writ petition cannot be entertained and prays for dismissal. 17. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and considering the various letters addressed by the petitioner seeking documents relied upon in the charge-sheet and after having gone through the enquiry report there is no doubt that the petitioner was denied copies of the documents as mentioned in Annexure-A of the charge-sheet from 03.04.2007 to 21.04.2008. The procedure of handing over the documents only after commencement of enquiry would amount to denial of fair opportunity for the Officer/Employee charged of various alleged offences. Such practice is detrimental to the interest of justice and cannot be considered as a fair play. 18. In the present set of facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is alleged to have tampered with the vital details entered in the insurance policies of the customers. The enquiry officer in the enquiry report has arrived at a conclusion based on the evidence of PW.1 with respect to identifying the signatures of the petitioner. PW.1 before the Enquiry Officer seems to have identified the checked and past signatures of the petitioner on the vouchers presented before him. PW.1 seems to have identified the signatures of the petitioner on letters dated 14.07.2005 and 15.07.2005, office note dated -nil-, two challans dated 15.07.2005. The PW.1 is admittedly not trained in forensic technology and the same was admitted by him in the cross-examination. PW.1 seems to have identified the signatures of the petitioner on letters dated 14.07.2005 and 15.07.2005, office note dated -nil-, two challans dated 15.07.2005. The PW.1 is admittedly not trained in forensic technology and the same was admitted by him in the cross-examination. However, PW.1 claimed that he could identify the different styles of signatures allegedly belonging to the petitioner on the vouchers on account of his working together with the petitioner for about two years. 19. The Presenting Officer had all the time with him for getting an Expert Opinion from the Forensic Laboratory with respect to the alleged disputed signatures and initials of the petitioner on various vouchers etc., The same is evidently not done and the Enquiry Officer basing on the oral evidence of PW.1 has concluded that the signatures and the initials on the vouchers etc., belong to the petitioner. When the signatures are disputed on the documents which are relied upon by the petitioner the respondent/corporation ought to have relied upon a more authentic source of evidence apart from the evidence of PW1 for holding the petitioner accountable for committing the offences charged against him. 20. In the present case, the procedure adopted by the respondent/corporation denying the access for the Annexure relied upon in the charge-sheet for almost a year and thereafter handing over the documents/annexure after commencement of enquiry proceedings have definitely cornered the petitioner. Had the petitioner been supplied with the copies of the documents soon after the petitioner was served with the charge sheet, the petitioner would have had a fair opportunity. 21. That apart, the finding of the Enquiry Officer in the enquiry report is totally based on the capability of PW.1 in identifying the disputed signatures of the petitioner therein on the various documents. When the petitioner is seriously disputing the signatures, hand writings on the documents relied upon in the charge-sheet, the enquiry officer could not have concluded that the signatures and hand writings belong to the petitioner merely basing on the evidence of PW1. 22. When the petitioner is seriously disputing the signatures, hand writings on the documents relied upon in the charge-sheet, the enquiry officer could not have concluded that the signatures and hand writings belong to the petitioner merely basing on the evidence of PW1. 22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Indian Oil Corporation and Others vs. V. Ajit Kumar and Another, wherein it was held that the Constitution Court while exercising its jurisdiction of its judicial review under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution would not interfere with the findings of the fact arrived at in the Departmental Enquiry Proceedings except in a case of malafides or perversity i.e., where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at those findings and so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the Departmental Authority. The same has to be sustained. In the said case the first respondent i.e., Ajit Kumar Singh was accused of tampering the bid amount of one of the bidders as the tampered bid document contained his signatures. This was confirmed by the Inquiry Report submitted by the Central Forensic Institute. The said employee was awarded punishment and the appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority and the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. However, in the Intra Court Appeal the Order of the learned Single Judge was reversed and the punishment imposed on the first respondent was set aside. The Hon’ble Supreme Court by relying on Deputy General Manager, Appellate Authority vs. Ajaya Kumar Srivatsava, 2021 (2) SCC 612 it is thus settled law that the Power of Judicial Review of the Constitutional Courts, is evaluation of decision making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The Court/Tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reach by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reach by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached or where the conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority are perverse or suffer from patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of the authority as a matter of fact.” 23. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also considered similar views expressed in the later judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ex-const/DVR Mukesh Kumar Raigar vs. Union of India and Others, 2023 SCC Online SC 27. 24. The law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in such cases and the very narrow scope for interference of a Constitutional Court in matters pertaining to enquiries conducted by a disciplinary authority is applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. The procedure adopted by the respondent in denying access to the petitioner the annexure relied upon in the charge-sheet for almost a year to the petitioner is definitely not legal and rational. Some of the documents mentioned in the Annexure-A of the charge-sheet are said to contain the disputed signatures of the petitioner. There is no reference to Central Forensic Laboratory for identifying the signatures or any other statutory expert authority or to any third-party expert. The procedure adopted by the Enquiry Officer in relying upon the capability of PW.1 to identify those signatures and initials without being an expert or without being trained in forensic sciences is highly irrational. Basing on such evidence of PW.1 the primary charge was said to be proved against the petitioner. The said finding is not only perverse, but also illogical and deserves to be set aside. 25. Basing on such evidence of PW.1 the primary charge was said to be proved against the petitioner. The said finding is not only perverse, but also illogical and deserves to be set aside. 25. The denial of annexure to the petitioner for almost a year is also not fair practice, The case on hand warrants interference as the denial of access to the documents relied upon in the charge sheet amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. The finding of the enquiry officer that the disputed signatures and handwritings belonged to the petitioner is definitely without any evidence. The findings reached by the Enquiry authority with respect to concluding that the disputed signatures and handwritings on the documents belong to the petitioner are perverse and suffer from patent error on the face of record and based on no evidence at all. 26. Considering these circumstances and the nature of allegations against the petitioner this Court is inclined to modify the punishment imposed on the petitioner vide proceedings dated 18.03.2010 and consequential proceedings dated 23.06.2010. The financial loss caused to the respondent/corporation on account of certain alleged acts of the petitioner also cannot be brush aside as trivial in nature. 27. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is inclined to modify the punishment imposed on the petitioner by directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service by paying 50% of the back wages after adjusting the amount recoverable from the petitioner. The petitioner shall not be entitled for the benefit of continuity of service. It is made clear that the petitioner is not entitled to claim the period out of employment for the purpose of accumulation of earned leave. 28. In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed, without costs. 29. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions if any, shall stand closed.