The principles of procedural fairness and proper execution of disciplinary actions were upheld, clarifying that reinstatement should not constitute a break in service and detailing compensatory considerations for the employee.

JUDGMENT

1. This petition has been preferred seeking the following reliefs: -

"(i) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned inquiry report dated 15.1.2010 and order dated 28.4.2010, 8.9.2010 and 10.10.2012 to the extent whereby the punishment of removal has been reduced to re- employment of Shri D.K.Malhotra and placing him in the initial basic of the scale of Administrative Officer with immediate effect and the period of removal from the service to re-employment shall be treated as period not spent on duty.

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to treat the petitioner on continuous duty with no break in service with all consequential benefits."

2. The petitioner assails the enquiry report dated 15th January, 2010, the order of removal dated 28th April, 2010 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the order of 08th September, 2010 passed by the Appellate Authority affirming the principal order of removal and the order dated 10th October, 2012 passed by the Managing Director of the respondent on a memorial petition submitted by the petitioner. The Managing Director in terms of the order dated 10th October 2012 has modified the penalty of removal and substituted it with that of re-employment. 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.

3. Before proceeding to notice the rival submissions, it would be apposite to notice the following essential facts: -

(a) The petitioner joined the National Insurance Company in September, 1985 as an Inspector. In course of time and in light of his work and performance, he was promoted to the post of Administrative Officer.

(b) 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].

(c) 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 first alleged that the petitioner was guilty of misappropriation in respect of three cover notes which had been issued in connection with car insurance policies. The other three charges alleged that the petitioner had been negligent in the discharge of his duties thus facilitating an agent namely Mr. Umesh Khanna in misappropriating cash premiums which were received.

(d) The inquiry proceedings were conducted in accordance with the provisions made in the 1975 Rules. While the respondents sought to prove and bring home the charges leveled by way of documentary and oral evidence which was introduced and led in these proceedings, the petitioner chose not to lead any evidence, oral or documentary in support of the defense that was proffered.

(e) The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 15th January, 2010 holding that all four charges leveled against the petitioner stood established.

(f) 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.

(g) On a consideration of the said reply as well as t