The court emphasized that a departmental inquiry must be conducted fairly and impartially, and findings cannot stand if the inquiry officer is biased or involved as a witness.

JUDGEMENT

1. Chief Regional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, vide Order dated 1st October 2010 (Annexure A to writ petition), has imposed penalty upon petitioner by “removal of service which shall not be disqualification for future employment”. Right to appeal was, however, given to the petitioner.

2. Petitioner preferred an Appeal against the order dated 1st October 2010. Appellate Authority (Deputy General Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Chandigarh Regional Office-1), has, vide Order dated 28th February 2011, rejected the petitioner’s appeal and confirmed the penalty imposed on him.

3. Aggrieved of the aforementioned Orders, the petitioner has knocked at portals of this Court with the writ petition on hand, seeking its quashment. He also prays to direct the respondents to reinstate him and give him all the consequential benefits.

4. Reply/counter was filed by the respondents. Thereafter rejoinder was filed by the petitioner.

5. During pendency of this writ petition, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has passed away on 8th June 2020. His legal heirs, thus, came up with an application, bearing CM no.1720/2021. A Bench of this Court vide order dated 18th March 2021 allowed the application, bringing on record legal heirs of deceased petitioner.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the matter.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the appellate authority has not followed Section 37(2) of the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1975 (for short the “Rules”) while passing the order impugned dated 28th February 2011. According to him, the enquiry against the petitioner was not conducted in accordance with Rule 25 (3) of the Rules as the charge sheet was to be framed by the Chief Regional Manager but it had been framed by Deputy Manager (respondent no.3), who has no jurisdiction to do so.

7.1. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner made various representations to the respondents requesting them to wait for outcome of the criminal trial pending before the court of the Special Judge Anticorruption, Srinagar, but he was, vide letter dated 31st March 2009, informed that the departmental inquiry had been initiated against him to impose a major penalty upon him and that there was no need to postpone departmental inquiry initiated against him.

7.2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the enquiry was just an eyewash as the petitioner was not provided an opportunity to file a detailed reply to the charge sheet, though he requested for it.

7.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently stated that the enquiry against the petitioner was conducted by Shri M. R. Balla, who was at the same time cited as a prosecution witness in the final report/challan filed by the CBI before the court of the Special Judge Anticorruption, Srinagar and therefore, it was not expected that the said officer would hold the enquiry fairly and unbiasedly.

7.4. It is also his contention that Branch Manager of Branch Batamalloo, namely, Mr. M.A.Shah, where the petitioner was last working, was not at all produced as a witness during the enquiry notwithstanding the fact that he was an important witness, particularly when the allegation against the petitioner was that he accepted Rs.2000/- from the party/claimant; out of which Rs.1000/- was allegedly recovered from Branch Manager and Rs.1000/- was allegedly recovered from the petitioner.

7.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also averred that the findings of the enquiry officer are self-contradictory because on one hand, he has observed that the claim file was handed over to the petitioner on 18th June 2007, which was processed by him and obtained the approval on 2nd July 2007 and the cheque was prepared on 12th July 2007, which was dispatched to the claimant on 17th July 2007 while as on the other hand, the enquiry officer has observed that the