Mohinder Pal, J.

By way of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks directions against the respondents for setting aside the order dated 21.1.2003, whereby, major penalty of dismissal from service with immediate effect has been imposed upon the petitioner by respondent no. 1. He has also challenged the rejection of appeal dated 14.4.2003 and Memorial (Review) dated 9.8.2003 while seeking restoration of his service.

2. Brief facts leading to filing of this petition are that the petitioner joined the National Insurance Company (respondent insurance company) - a subsidiary of General Insurance Corporation of India as an Assistant in June, 1979. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer (AAO) in the year 1985, and later on, promoted in the cadre of Branch Manager/Administrative Officer in the year 1988. During the very long span of dedicated and diligent service of over 22 years till 2001 prior to his suspension in October, 2001, and subsequent dismissal from services with immediate effect in January, 2003, he had efficiently and single-handedly contributed to many high-skilled jobs assigned to him from time to time by the authorities.

3. Prior to dismissal effected in January, 2003, the petitioner was initially recklessly suspended from the services of respondent-insurance company vide Office Order dated 9.10.2001 by terming the petitioner's presence before the Insurance Ombudsman (Gujarat) on 8.10.2001 on behalf of his maternal uncle - an insured, as prejudicial act to the interest of the respondent insurance company in terms of General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeals) Rules, 1975. The said order of suspension was served upon the petitioner by respondent no. 2 vide its letter dated 12.10.2001. It is the case of the petitioner that the said suspension order clearly stated that the petitioner appeared before the Insurance Ombudsman and acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the company in violation of 4(5), (20), 6 and 7 of CDR Rules, 1975, and therefore, the petitioner was thereby suspended. It is the case of the petitioner that he has never made any statement in favour of his maternal uncle and against respondent no. 1 before the Insurance Ombudsman on the relevant date.

4. The petitioner has submitted that such an unfortunate event that has travelled in an unscrupulous and unusual way and in malafide manner had led him to approach this High Court in November, 2001 by way of filing of the writ petition bearing SCA No. 10826/2001 challenging the selective and malafide suspension wherein this High Court has issued notices against respondents no. 1 and 2. Later on, as per letter dated 18.12.2001, Memorandum for holding the inquiry and Articles of charge framed (charge sheet) against the petitioner were issued to the petitioner. As many as 9 charges were framed against the petitioner and an inquiry came to be conducted, and out of 9 charges, three charges i.e. charge no. 1,7 and 9 were proved, two charges i.e. charges no. 2 and 3 were partly proved and four charges i.e. charges no. 4,5,6 & 8 were not proved, to which, the petitioner sent detailed representation vide his letter dated 25.11.2002. Instead of responding to the petitioner by dealing with his representation suitably, he has been dismissed from service with immediate effect as per impugned order dated 21.1.2003. The appeal, review and some of the representations made by the petitioner also came to be dismissed and the petitioner was dismissed from service. The petitioner has sought for setting aside the dismissal by way of this petition.

5. The respondents have contested this petition by filing reply, wherein, it has been stated that the petitioner has argued the case at length before the authority concerned against the respondent- Insurance Company. It is further their case that the petitioner has appeared against the company without obtaining permission from the management o