2021 Supreme(Del) 1511

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Yashwant Varma, J.
Devender Malhotra - Appellant
Versus
National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No. 6318 of 2013
Decided On : 10-11-2021

The main legal point established in the given judgment is the interpretation of the order passed by the first respondent as one of reinstatement of the petitioner, rather than a fresh or re-engagement, and the finding that the period between removal from service and re-employment should not constitute a break in service, as per Rule 22 of the General Insurance (Conduct Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1975.

Headnote:

Certiorari - Disciplinary Proceedings - General Insurance (Conduct Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1975 - The Court deems it unnecessary to rule on the validity of the orders passed by the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities since they stand merged in the order ultimately passed by the Managing Director except to the limited extent of evaluating whether they are perverse as urged by learned senior counsel appearing in support of the petition. The petitioner joined the National Insurance Company in September, 1985 as an Inspector. The orders impugned in this writ petition have come to be passed pursuant to disciplinary proceedings initiated by the respondents under the provisions of the General Insurance (Conduct Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1975 [1975 Rules]. The proceedings themselves commenced upon a charge sheet coming to be issued against the petitioner on 02nd January, 2007. Four charges came to be leveled against the petitioner. The inquiry proceedings were conducted in accordance with the provisions made in the 1975 Rules. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 15th January, 2010 holding that all four charges leveled against the petitioner stood established. Upon a copy of the report being forwarded to the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority, a reply dated 20th February, 2010 was submitted by the petitioner. On a consideration of the said reply as well as the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority concurred with the opinion as formed by the Inquiry Officer and proceeded to impose the penalty of removal from service. The decision of the Disciplinary Authority as noted above was affirmed in appeal. The aforementioned two orders were challenged by the petitioner before this Court by way of W.P.(C) 2597/2012. The Court on the aforesaid petition took notice of the fact that the petitioner had preferred a memorial against the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority in terms of the provisions made under Rule 40 of the 1975 Rules. In view thereof, the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of on 27th September, 2012 with a direction to the first respondent to dispose of the pending memorial in accordance with law. It is pursuant to the direction issued on that writ petition that the first respondent has passed the impugned order dated 10th October, 2012.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner joined the National Insurance Company in September, 1985 as an Inspector. The orders impugned in this writ petition have come to be passed pursuant to disciplinary proceedings initiated by the respondents under the provisions of the General Insurance (Conduct Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1975 [1975 Rules]. The proceedings themselves commenced upon a charge sheet coming to be issued against the petitioner on 02nd January, 2007. Four charges came to be leveled against the petitioner. The inquiry proceedings were conducted in accordance with the provisions made in the 1975 Rules. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 15th January, 2010 holding that all four charges leveled against the petitioner stood established. Upon a copy of the report being forwarded to the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority, a reply dated 20th February, 2010 was submitted by the petitioner. On a consideration of the said reply as well as the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority concurred with the opinion as formed by the Inquiry Officer and proceeded to impose the penalty of removal from service. The decision of the Disciplinary Authority as noted above was affirmed in appeal. The aforementioned two orders were challenged by the petitioner before this Court by way of W.P.(C) 2597/2012. The Court on the aforesaid petition took notice of the fact that the petitioner had preferred a memorial against the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority in terms of the provisions made under Rule 40 of the 1975 Rules. In view thereof, the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of on 27th September, 2012 with a direction to the first respondent to dispose of the pending memorial in accordance with law. It is pursuant to the direction issued on that writ petition that the first respondent has passed the impugned order dated 10th October, 2012.

Finding of the Court:

The Court holds that the charge of negligence as has been ultimately recorded by the first respondent against the petitioner would clearly sustain and stands established. The Court is of the considered view that the only plausible interpretation which can be conferred on the order passed by the first respondent is to recognise the same as being one of reinstatement of the petitioner. It cannot possibly be read or construed as being a fresh or re-engagement of the petitioner under the respondents. The Court holds in favour of the petitioner and find itself unable to uphold the decision of the first respondent that the period between removal from service till the petitioner came to be reinstated would constitute a break in service. The matter would warrant being remitted to the first respondent for considering this limited aspect bearing in mind the observations and findings recorded hereinabove. The exercise of reconsideration may be concluded with expedition and preferably within 2 months from the date of presentation of an authenticated copy of this judgment.

Issues: The issues in this case revolve around the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, the imposition of the penalty of removal from service, the subsequent modification of the penalty to re-employment, and the treatment of the period between removal and re-employment as a break in service.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court holds that the charge of negligence as has been ultimately recorded by the first respondent against the petitioner would clearly sustain and stands established. The Court is of the considered view that the only plausible interpretation which can be conferred on the order passed by the first respondent is to recognise the same as being one of reinstatement of the petitioner. It cannot possibly be read or construed as being a fresh or re-engagement of the petitioner under the respondents. The Court holds in favour of the petitioner and find itself unable to uphold the decision of the first respondent that the period between removal from service till the petitioner came to be reinstated would constitute a break in service. The matter would warrant being remitted to the first respondent for considering this limited aspect bearing in mind the observations and findings recorded hereinabove. The exercise of reconsideration may be concluded with expedition and preferably within 2 months from the date of presentation of an authenticated copy of this judgment.

Final Decision: The writ petition shall stand partly allowed. The order of 10th October, 2012 insofar as it holds that the period during which the order of removal remained in place would constitute a break in service shall stand quashed and set aside. The matter would warrant being remitted to the first respondent for considering this limited aspect bearing in mind the observations and findings recorded hereinabove. The exercise of reconsideration may be concluded with expedition and preferably within 2 months from the date of presentation of an authenticated copy of this judgment.