Back
2000 Supreme(Pat) 669
PATNA HIGH COURT
Asok Kumar Ganguly, J.
Jeevan Kumar Jayaswal
Versus
New India Assurance Company Limited
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5849 of 1996 ;
Decided On : MAY 03, 2000
Headnote:General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975-Rule 37-In a case of appeal against an order imposing penalty the appellate authority is to consider (a) whether the procedure prescribed in these Rules has been complied with and if not whether such non-compliance has resulted in failure of justice, (b) whether the findings are justified and (c) whether the penalty imposed is excessive, adequate or inadequate-When the rules require the appellate authority to apply its mind to specific items of consideration, it is incumbent upon the appellate authority to disclose its reasoned findings-There is no finding given by the appellate authority on the crucial questions-In some cases when the appellate authority affirms the order of the original authority it may not give detailed reasons but under the relevant rules, the appellate authority is under statutory obligation to give a clear finding in terms of Regulation 37(2) (a) (b) & (e)-Requirements of Regulation not complied with by appellate authority hence order quashed. (Paras 8, 13, 14, 20 & 21)
1985(3) SLR 745, AIR 1986 SC 1173, 1994 BBCJ 218 (SC) - Relied.
A.K.Ganguly, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 2.9.1992 issued under the signature of the Regional Manager-cum-Competent authority, New India Assurance Company Limited (hereinafter called the said Company. By the said order, the petitioner has been removed from service with effect from the date of the order. Prayer has also been made for quashing the appellate order dated 5.2.1996 by which the order of removal has been affirmed.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was first appointed a Development Officer in the said Company. While so serving as a Development Officer of the said Company, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet by a letter dated 5.8.1986, The charges on the basis of which the proceeding was initiated against the petitioner are set out below:
It has been reported against you that while acting as an Inspector of the Company, you had issued a temporary Fire Insurance Cover Note No. 233024 dated 24.11.82 at Monghyr to cover the fire insurance risk amounting to Rs. 10,20,000.00 of the Building, Plant and Machinery, Furniture Fixtures and Racks and Electrical fittings of Khajpura Cold Storage (P) Ltd., Bailey Road, Patna though you were not authorised to issue such temporary Cover Notes, without referring the proposal for insurance to the Divisional Office at Patna for its verification and acceptance. You have thereby acted without authority and beyond authority.
It has been further reported that your said temporary Cover Note was a backdated one in order to give a backdated Fire Insurance Cover for the damages to the said Khajpura Cold Storage already caused by fire on the night of 24.11.82. You have thereby acted fraudulently and dishonestly in connection with the business of the Company.
The acts as alleged above, if proved to be true, would make you liable for disciplinary action. You are, therefore, asked to show-cause in writing within 10 days from the receipt hereof as to why suitable disciplinary action should not be taken against you for the following misconduct: (a) Acting without authority and/or beyond authority.
(b) Fraud and dishonesty in connection with the business of the Company.
(c) Acting in a manner prejudicial to the Company.
If you fail to show-cause as directed, it would be deemed that you have no explanation to offer and the matter will be decided without further reference to you.
Statements of allegations on which the charges are based are given hereinabove in the body of the charge-sheet itself. A list of documents by which and a list of witnesses by whom the articles of charges are proposed to be sustained are given in Annexures marked as A and B respectively.
3. From a perusal of the said charge-sheet, it appears that the temporary Fire Insurance Cover Note is dated 24.11.1982 and the fire took place in the said Khajpura Cold Storage on the night of that date itself, i.e., 24.11.1982 and one of the allegations against the petitioner is that the said temporary cover note was backdated. However, along with the charges lists of documents and the list of witnesses were also disclosed. A detailed inquiry took place in which the petitioner participated. The petitioner was also given the help of a defence helper. It appears that in the said inquiry witnesses were produced, examined and cross-examined. After the inquiry was over, the inquiry officer gave a detailed report holding that out of the three charges, the first charge, i.e., acting without authority and/or beyond authority was not proved and charge Nos. 2 and 3, namely, fraud and dishonesty in connection with the business of the Company and acting in a manner prejudicial to the Company have been proved. On the basis of the said inquiry report a second show-cause notice was also given to the petitioner and the petitioner has given his reply to the same. Thereafter, on consideration of the petitioners reply to the second show-cause notice, the respondent authorities passed the order of r
