Back
2016 Supreme(Pat) 288
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH, J.
Priyavrata Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
The Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, National Insurance Company Limited & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12379 of 2008
Decided On : 13-01-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Arun Kumar Sinha
For the Respondents: Mr. Ashok Priyadarshi
The appellate authority's order must reflect a proper application of mind to the facts and issues, even if it does not provide detailed reasons, in compliance with Rule 37(2)(b) of the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1975.
Headnote:
Misconduct - Employee Discipline - General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1975, Rule 3(i), 4(5), 4(12), 4(20), 23(e), 26, 37 - The court examined the disciplinary proceedings against an employee of the National Insurance Company and found that the appellate authority's order did not reflect a proper application of mind as required by Rule 37(2)(b) of the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1975. The court partially allowed the writ application and remitted the matter to the appellate authority for fresh consideration in accordance with the law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of National Insurance Company, was departmentally proceeded for misconduct. The disciplinary authority imposed a penalty of reduction of basic pay by two stages, which was upheld by the appellate authority and the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the NIC. The petitioner challenged the orders primarily on the ground that they were not reasoned and in violation of Rule 37 of General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1975.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellate authority's order did not comply with the requirements of Rule 37(2)(b) of the Rules 1975, as it did not reflect a proper application of mind to the facts and issues. The court partially allowed the writ application and remitted the matter to the appellate authority for fresh consideration in accordance with the law.
Issues: The main issue was whether the orders of the appellate authority and the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the NIC complied with the requirements of Rule 37(2)(b) of the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1975.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellate authority's order must reflect a proper application of mind to the facts and issues, even if it does not provide detailed reasons. It emphasized the importance of complying with the requirements of Rule 37(2)(b) of the Rules 1975 and the need for some reasons for coming to the conclusion that the findings are justified.
Final Decision: The court partially allowed the writ application and remitted the matter to the appellate authority for fresh consideration in accordance with the law.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State.
2. The petitioner is an employee of National Insurance Company Limited (herein after referred to as “the NIC”) and in the year 2000 he was working in Dehri-on-Sone Branch under Gaya Divisional office as Development Officer, Grade-II. He was departmentally proceeded for certain acts of omission and commission committed during his posting at Dehri-On-Sone. Charges were framed on 11.01.2001 and were as follows:
“On 03.04.2000 at about 2.00-2.30P.M. in the office premises of Dehri-on-Sone Branch, National Insurance Company Ltd. following a dispute arising out of a controversy over the premium rate of Mediclaim Policy, Shri P. Kumar, Dev. Officer, Grade II, Dehri-on-Sone Branch, National Insurance Co. Ltd., tried to forcibly use the office telephone in the Chamber of Sri G. B. Singh, Branch Manager, Dehri-on-Sone Branch and physically assaulted, misbehaved and manhandled Sri Singh in the office premises. Therefore, the act of Sri Kumar in spoiling the decorum of the office, disturbing office work and engaging himself in the indecent, disorderly and riotous behaviour in the office premises is tantamount to misconduct under General Insurance, CDA Rule 1975, Shri Kumar thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a public servant. Thus, Shri Kumar violated Rule 3(i) of the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1975 and committed misconduct under Rules 4(5), 4(12) and 4(20) of the said General Insurance (CDA) Rules, 1975.”
3. The petitioner duly replied to the article of charges vide Annexure-4. The enquiry officer submitted his report exonerating him from part of the charge as far as it related to use of office telephone of Shri G.B. Singh, Branch Manager. However, he was found guilty of misbehaviour and entering into a scuffle with the Branch Manager. The disciplinary authority sought show-cause from the petitioner while forwarding a copy of the enquiry report. The petitioner submitted his explanation, which did not find favour with the disciplinary authority.
4. The disciplinary authority in terms of Rule 26 of the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to “Rules, 1975”) imposed penalty of reduction of basic pay by two stages in the cadre of Development Officer Grade-I with immediate effect as provided under Rule 23(e) of Rules, 1975. The petitioner preferred an appeal and Memorial, which too were rejected vide order dated 30.03.2006 of Deputy General Manager, NIC and the order dated 21.12.2006 of Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the NIC.
5. The petitioner has challenged the impugned orders primarily on the ground that the order of the appellate authority and the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the NIC are not reasoned orders and is in violation of Rule 37 of General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1975 He submits that punishment is harsh and excessive.
6. Mr. Ashok Priyadarshi, learned counsel for the NIC submits that the order passed by the appellate authority as well as the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the NIC in Memorial have been passed in accordance with Rule 37(2)(b) of the 1975 Rules. He submits that if the order of the appellate authority is in agreement with the disciplinary authority, it may not be a speaking one, if the order shows proper application of mind as regard the compliance of the requirement of law while exercising his jurisdiction under Rule 37 of the Rules, 1975.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. I find that the disciplinary proceeding has been conducted in accordance with law and sufficient opportunity has been given to the petitioner to place his case before the enquiry officer as well as disciplinary authority.
8. The main issue for consideration before this Court is whether the order passed by the appellate authority and
