The main legal point established in the judgment is that allegations of misconduct must be supported by evidence of ill motive or wrongful intention, and errors in judgment or negligence may not necessarily constitute misconduct.

JUDGMENT :

SUNITA AGARWAL, J.

1. Heard Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. R.V. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Out of these two connected appeals, Letters Patent Appeal No. 1114 of 2022 has been filed by the Insurance Company against the judgment and order dated 19.7.2022, whereby the learned Single Judge has set aside the order of dismissal dated 16.5.2017 of the petitioner from service as also the order passed in appeal dated 11.3.2019, confirming the same and held that the writ petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits viz. terminal benefits as if the order of dismissal order has never been passed. The cross appeal filed by the writ petitioner is confined to the challenge to the order of the rejection of his claim for grant of interest on the pension and other benefits due, resulting from quashing of the order of dismissal and its confirmation in appeal.

3. The brief facts relevant to decide the controversy at hand, are that the writ petitioner, while working as Senior Divisional Manager in the company namely, New India Assurance Company Limited at Gandhidham (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellant company’), was served with the charge-sheet dated 9.3.2016. The imputation of charges was with respect to settlement of 10 claims in the Lok Adalat during the year 2014-15, with the allegation that such settlements were made by the petitioner with ulterior motive. The statement of imputation of misconduct in support of the Article of charges dated 9.3.2016 framed against the writ petitioner reads that while settling 10 claims mentioned therein from Item No. ‘I to X’, the writ petitioner exhibited absolute lack of integrity and devotion of duty and has acted in a manner unbecoming of a public servant and also acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Company. While settling the claim, he has deliberately acted, in grossly irregular manner, ignoring the norms/guidelines of the company, terms and conditions of the M.V. Policy, provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and without ensuring that the liability of the company was absolute. The allegation was about the loss caused to the Company to the tune of Rs.66,81,105/- paid to the claimants on the premise that the writ petitioner had settled the claims knowing fully well that the company had no liability in such cases.

4. The inquiry report dated 25.10.2016 records that the writ petitioner did not produce any defence witness. The defence taken by the petitioner in his oral examination and documentary evidence was appreciated therein to note that the writ petitioner was trying to shift all his responsibility and attribute the responsibility for the settlement to the legal department of the Company, though he has confirmed that he signed compromise purshis and it was his responsibility to seek entire file before making his signature. It is noted therein that there was no office note/recommendation of the department before the date of signing of the purshis by the writ petitioner. The defence of the petitioner that he was not responsible and the legal department was responsible, as such, does not exonerate him. It was further observed that the department had not recommended any of these claims rather there were contrary remarks for the claims. The writ petitioner, thus, deliberately with an ulterior motive, compromised to pay motor T.P. claims amounting to Rs.66,81,105/-, paid to the claimants, knowing fully well that the company had no liability in such cases.

5. A perusal of the charge analysis of the cases and findings shows that in all 10 charges related to compromise settlement in the Lok Adalat, the allegations were that the settlements were made in contravention of the provisions ignoring the fact that the company was not liable for the claims. There is a reference of the defence taken by the Company in the case file of those cases which were settled before the Lok Adalat, giving reasons as to why the clai