IMPORTANT POINT
The disciplinary authority's findings must be based on cogent evidence, and procedural irregularities must be substantial to affect the outcome.

ORDER :

1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner, who was working as a Development Officer in the respondent-Insurance Company at the relevant time (hereinafter referred to as ‘delinquent officer’) has challenged the order dated 31.03.1998 passed by the respondent no. 3-Regional Manager and disciplinary authority, whereby the petitioner has been removed from services in terms of rule 23 of General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1975’).

2. It may be noted that the petitioner-Tara Chand Choudhary has since passed away on 16.04.2017, whereafter his legal representatives moved the application for substitution, which was allowed and hence, they are pursuing the present petition.

3. Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel for the delinquent officer, argued that the inquiry report dated 18.02.1997 so also the order of the disciplinary authority dated 31.03.1998 passed by the competent authority are illegal.

4. At this juncture, Mr. Vyas, learned counsel counsel for the Insurance Company interjected and submitted that the inquiry report per-se has not been challenged, while inviting Court’s attention towards the prayer clause of the petition.

5. This Court is, however, not inclined to accept the preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents that since the inquiry report has not been challenged, the delinquent officer cannot be permitted to lay challenge thereto and canvass grounds finding fault in the inquiry report.

6. Because, the delinquent officer has challenged the termination order dated 31.03.1998, and the inquiry report has formed the basis of such order. Even if, on account of inadvertence or otherwise, a formal challenge to the inquiry report has not been laid in the prayer clause, the delinquent officer’s right to challenge the inquiry report cannot be taken away, when specific grounds attacking the same have been taken in the memo of petition.

7. The charges levelled against the delinquent officer were as under:

1. He issued a TP motor cover-note no. 0552888 on 21.7.1989 covering the vehicle No. GRM-7648 of Shri Badri Lal Sudhar deliverately and dishmestly back dating the period of cover as 29.06.89 to 28.6.90. He thus exposed the company to an unwarranted liability of cover Rs.7,91,000/- in three MACT claims no. 487/89, 486/89 and 448/89 arising out of third party fatal accident by this vehicle on 08.07.89.

2. He issued TP cover-note No. 211386 on 10.6.87 covering Autorickshaw No. RRY-3265 of Shri Sephi Moh deliverately and dishonestly backdating the period of cover as 6.6.87 to 5.6.88. He thus exposed the company to an unwarranted liability of Rs.50,000/- in MACT Udaipur claim No. 8/88 arising out of third party fatal accident by this vehicle on 6.6.1987.

3. He issued cover-note No. 212443 on 30.11.87 on thereafter for covering Mini Bus No. RRZ-8945 of Shri Bhim Singh after the occurrence of third party fatal accident with Luna RSJ-703 but backdated the issue of cover-note as 1 PM on 30.11.87. He thus exposed the company to an unwarranted liability of Rs.12,60,000/- in MACT Udaipur claim No. 27/88.

4. He had temporarily misappropriated the amount of premium of Rs.2310/- mentioned as under:

(a) He issued the motor cover-note No. 962273 w.e.f. 18.4.90 to 17.4.91 favouring Shri Sukh Lal against a premium of Rs.5960/- As against this he deposited only an amount of deposit of Rs.660/- by Sh. Choudhary in the office. He later on deposited the balance amount of premium Rs.660/- in the office vide collection no. 2238 dated 14.9.90.

(b) He issued the motor cover-note has 962147 and 962148 w.e.f. 30.3.90 to 29.3.91 against a premium of Rs.2939/- each (total Rs.5878/-) (Rs.2114 each) in the office on 30.3.90 thus there was short deposit of Rs.1650/- by Shri Choudhary in the office. He later on deposited the balance amount of premium of Rs.1650/- vide collection No. 02236 and 02237 dated 14.9.90. By this above acts, Shri T.R. Choudhary has failed to maintai