The High Court cannot interfere with the findings of a disciplinary authority unless the findings are based on no evidence or are clearly perverse.

JUDGMENT :

1. These proceedings owe their origin to Memorandum, dated 6th June, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “the charge-sheet”), issued to the petitioner by the Assistant General Manager and disciplinary authority, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (the respondent herein, though impleaded in the name of its Chief Regional Manager), proposing to initiate an inquiry, against the petitioner, under Rule 25 of the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as “the CDA Rules”), and calling on the petitioner to submit his response thereto.

2. The charge-sheet contained four Articles of Charge, against the petitioner, numbered Articles of Charge 1 (a) to (c), and Article of Charge No. 2. Article 2, of the Articles of Charge, stands dropped, and no further reference, thereto, is required, therefore, to be made.

3. Articles 1 (a) to (c), of the Articles of Charge, dealt with the period 1999-2000, during which the petitioner had settled certain allegedly bogus claims for cattle insurance. A brief reference, to these three sub-Articles of Charge, may be provided thus:

(1) Article 1 (a) related to Cattle Policy No. 045631, favouring Parveen Singh. This policy was admittedly settled, by the petitioner, in favour of Parveen Singh, resulting in the issuance, to him, of cheque No. 430041, dated 23rd June, 2000, for Rs. 12,000/-. Regarding this claim, it was alleged thus:

(a) The petitioner had “caused the issuance” of the said policy, through the Development Officer D. K. Aggarwal, against payment of cash premium of Rs. 600/–, through an agent, Farukh Khan. It was alleged that D. K. Aggarwal had deposited the said pre-signed policy with Farukh Khan, as per the instructions of the petitioner.

(b) The period covered by the policy was altered, in the policy, from 7th January, 2000 to 6th January, 2003, to 27th February, 2000 to 26th February, 2003.

(c) The animal, covered by the said policy was shown, in the policy, as financed by the U. P. Sehkari Gramin Vikas Bank. However, the said Bank confirmed that the animal had neither been financed by it, nor was intimation of death given by the said Bank. It was, therefore, alleged that the inclusion of the name of the Bank, in the policy, was done in order to show existence of Bank finance to a non-existent animal, so as to get the policy underwritten.

(d) In the claim intimation letter, the date of death of the animal, covered by the policy, was altered to 17th March, 2000, by the Veterinary Surgeon, allegedly to facilitate coverage of the animal by the policy.

(e) The cheque, whereby the claim amount was disbursed by the respondent, initially reflected the name of the payee as “U. P. Sehkari GraminVikas Bank, A/c Parveen Singh”. The name of the payee was, thereafter, altered to “L. D. Bank, A/c Parveen Singh” and, again, thereafter, to “A/c Parveen Singh, S/o Darshan Singh”. It was finally, therefore, issued in favour of “A/c Parveen Singh, S/o Darshan Singh”, and the amounts covered thereby were withdrawn by Parveen Singh, through the Punjab National Bank, Moradabad Gate.

(f) Thus, it was alleged, the petitioner had approved a bogus cattle claim for Rs. 12,000/–, resulting in undue financial loss to the respondent.

(2) Article 1 (b) covered a similar policy, No. 43941, for the period 27th October, 1999 to 26th October, 2000. The policy was issued in favour of “Punjab National Bank, Salempur A/c Mahesh Chaudhary”. Two cattle claims, under the said policy, were settled, by the petitioner, vide cheques dated 8th May, 2000 and 29th January, 2001, each for Rs. 8000/–. In respect of this policy, it was alleged as under:

(a) The petitioner had “caused issuance” of the policy, through Yogesh Kumar Sharma, Development Officer.

(b) The Punjab National Bank confirmed that the animals, allegedly covered by the said policy, were neither financed by it, nor was intimation of