The main legal point established in the judgment is that the initial defect in jurisdiction could not be cured by the decisions of the appellate and revisional authorities, and that the proceedings initiated by an incompetent authority rendered the entire proceedings without jurisdiction.

1. Petitioner was working as Assistant Branch Manager at the Trichur Branch of the First respondent Company. Disciplinary action was taken against him. He was served with memo of charges and statement of the imputation of misconduct or mis-behaviour. An enquiry was held into the charges as provided by R.25 of the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of the charges. On the basis of the enquiry report the Assistant General Manager by Ext. P5 order dated 13-1-1979 imposed a major penalty of removal from the service. The said order further provided for recovery of the financial loss sustained by the Company from out of the amounts payable to the petitioner by way of Gratuity and other amounts. The order Ext. P5 was taken up in appeal before the General Manager as provided by R.31 of the Rules. By Ext. P7 dated 6-8-1979 the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal. Against the said decision the petitioner preferred a memorial before the Chairman-cum-Managing Director as provided by R.40 of the Rules. The memorial was disposed of by Ext. P10 order dated 19-5-1980. By that order the petitioner was reinstated in service without exonerating him of the charges proved in the enquiry, on condition that the reinstatement will come into effect only on his reporting to duty, that his services will stand transferred to Mangalore Divisional Office as A. A. O. (A), that the basic salary will be downgraded to the lowest stage in the time scale, that pecuniary loss caused to the company which may be due from the petitioner will be recovered, that the period between the date of removal from service and the date of reinstatement will be treated as period under suspension and the petitioner will be entitled to subsistence allowance at the rate of 75 per cent and that no other benefit will accrue to him between the date of removal and reinstatement as the said period will not qualify for any benefit whatsoever. The petitioner challenges Exts. P5, P7 and P10 orders and also Ext. P1 notice informing about the enquiry into the misconduct alleged against the petitioner and Ext. P4 report filed by the officer who conducted the enquiry.

2. The main ground of attack against the orders Exts. P5. P7 and P10 are that the disciplinary actions were not initiated by a competent authority prescribed in the Rules, that Ext. P1 memorandum was issued by the Manager of the Regional Office at Madras, that he bad no authority to issue such a memorandum or to initiate any disciplinary action against the petitioner for imposition of a major penalty, that all proceedings which followed in pursuance to Ext. P1 are void ab initio and that Ext.P5 order removing the petitioner from service based on the enquiry report which is null and void cannot have any legal validity. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the Appellate Authority while disposing of the statutory appeal by Ext.P7 did not consider the various points urged before it and that disposal was by a laconic order. The petitioner proceeded to state that the Chairman-cumManaging Director also did not advert to the various aspects urged in the memorial while passing Ext. P10 order. On these grounds it is argued that the original petition has only to be allowed.

3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The contentions raised therein are that Ext. P1 charge memo was issued after a proper enquiry into the charges mentioned therein, that the enquiry officer submitted Ext. P4 report, that further orders have been passed based on that report, that if the final and operative order, namely, Ext. P10, is free from any infirmity, then the petitioner cannot ask for quashing the charge memo or the enquiry officer's report, that the mis-conduct committed by the petitioner was in relation to the period from 31-12-1974 to 2-1-1975. that the said charge memo and