The legal validity of disciplinary actions relies on adherence to natural justice and proper procedure in inquiry; mere allegations of bias or misconduct without substantial evidence are insufficient for intervention.

JUDGMENT

Chandra Dhari Singh, J.

1. The instant amended writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Petitioner, praying inter alia as under:

"(a) Issue a writ of certiorari for quashing the charge sheet dated 22.7.2005, termination order dated 11.8.2006 and appellate authorities order dated 28.11.2006;

(b) Issue a writ of mandamus for setting aside Respondent No. 1's non-speaking order dated 6.6.2006 amounting to non- compliance, of order dated 16.3.2006 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition [C] No. 8805/2005;

(c) Issue a writ of mandamus for initiating action under CDA Rules against the Inquiry Officer who mis-conducted by violating the order dated 16.3.2006 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition [C] No. 8805/2005;

(d) Issue a writ of mandamus for parity in treatment by initiating action against Shri M.P. Verma as per recommendation of CVC in Jagir Lai's case and National Commission's order in Malana Power Co. Ltd. and against those officers who cause loss of Rs.8.5 crores to the Oriental Insurance Co. by releasing payment without obtaining bills amounting to public misfeasance and unjust enrichment as per petitioner's complaint dated 21.11.2006 and 25.7.2007;"

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The matter has arisen out of the facts as detailed hereunder:

a. The petitioner herein, Shri Narender Khanna, was posted as Assistant Manager at DO-13, New Delhi with the Respondent in the year 2005.

b. Inquiry was proposed and the procedure under Rule 25 of General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as "GI (CDA) Rules, 1975") was initiated. Charges were framed against the Petitioner on 22.07.2005 for insubordination of his superior, and demand of money from the claimants to settle their claims.

c. The Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry and in his inquiry report dated 08.05.2006, upon examination and cross-examination of witnesses and documents arrived at the conclusion that the charge of insubordination as well as the charge of demanding money by the petitioner from the claimant stood proved.

d. Subsequently, the General Manager vide its order dated 11.08.2006 imposed the penalty of "removal from services which shall not be a disqualification for future employment."

e. The Appellate Authority while adjudicating the appeal vide its order dated 28.11.2006 found no reason to interfere with the decision taken by the Disciplinary Authority and upheld the termination.

f. The petitioner thus being aggrieved by his termination and the subsequent upholding of the same by the Appellate Authority has approached this Court for setting aside the same.

SUBMISSIONS

Petitioner's Submissions:

3. The petitioner appearing in person submitted that Shri D.K.Babuta (DW-5) who headed the Fact-Finding Committee was reporting directly to Sh.O.P.Pandey, AGM cum Disciplinary Authority who later on had issued the charge-sheet dated 22.07.2005. DW-5 had earlier expressed animosity towards the petitioner during meeting dated 05.04.2005 and had also appointed the surveyor, whereas the petitioner was competent authority to appoint the surveyor.

4. It is submitted that the DW-5, having personal bias towards the petitioner, deliberately and maliciously did not record evidence of DW-1, DW-2, DW-3 & DW-4 who had disposed in favour of the petitioner during the inquiry proceedings. He did not record the evidence of CVO who had exonerated the petitioner as per his remarks reproduced in Dept Note dated 10.05.2005. He did not record the statement of PW-2 that he had for