The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle that the punishment imposed on a delinquent officer must be proportionate to the proved charges and should not shock the conscience of the court, allowing for the court's interference in the punishment.

The challenge in this petition is to the order passed by the third respondent dated 11.07.2003 in CBE/RO/RM/SECT.742/2003 removing the petitioner from service and as confirmed by the appellate authority, the second respondent herein by order dated 19.02.2004 in Ref.No.2001-45/12/2004 with prayer for a consequential relief of a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with attendant monetary benefits.

2. The factual matrix leading to the filing of this writ petition could be briefed hereunder :

1. The petitioner joined the first respondent insurance company limited as a Development Officer on 27.04.1987 and his post was confirmed with effect from 01.05.1998. The petitioner stated that he is having unblemished record of service and his service and performance as Development Officer was appreciated by the Senior Divisional Manager, Coimbatore, by his letters dated 23.05.1995, 211. 1995 and 19.07.1996. By another letter dated 29.07.1999, the Regional Manager has appreciated the performance of the petitioner on the Market Front for having registered a growth rate of 57.58 %. That being the position, the third respondent herein initiated proceedings by his memorandum dated 23.08.2001 under Rule 25 of the General Insurance (Conduct Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as "the rules"). The following charge was framed against the petitioner :

"Shri.S.Kannan, whilst working as Development Officer in Branch Office V, Coimbatore, during 1995, issued Cover Note No.186621 on 15.05.1995 Covering Vehicle No.TN-37-Z-2599 belonging M/s.Velu Transport Service, marking the date of issue of the Cover Note as 13.05.1995 and period of insurance as 13.05.1995 to 12.05.1996. The Cover was ante-dated with a view to bring into Cover the occurrence of accident to the above Vehicle on 15.05.1995 at 09.25 A.M. involving death of a third party person. Shri.S.Kannan had ante-dated the insurance with a view to confer undue pecuniary benefit to the insured. Thus Shri.S.Kannan failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty acted in a manner unbecoming of a public servant and committed misconduct within the meaning of Rule 391) (I), (II) and (III) read with Rule 4(1) 4(5) and 4(9) of General Insurance (General Discipline and Appeal) Rules".

2. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the above said charge dated 010. 2001 stating that only on the instructions of the Senior Branch Manager, he had issued the above Cover Note to M/s.Velu Bus Transports to cover their vehicle bearing No.TN-37-Z-2599 for the period from 13.05.1995 to 12.05.1996 and the proposal had been filled in by the then Senior Branch Manager and initialed on 13.05.1995 at 10.30 a.m. itself as a mark of acceptance of the business on 13.05.1995 itself and the policy was also issued for the same period, i.e., from 13.05.1995 to 12.05.1996 signed by the Senior Branch Manager. The petitioner further stated in the explanation that as per the normal practice prevailing in the office, the cover note will be taken with the permission of the Senior Branch Manager and entries will be made on subsequent working day and 13.05.1995, being a holiday, the cover note was issued by the then Senior Branch Manager without making entries in the Cover Note Register as the said register was kept locked by the record clerk. As 15.05.1995 being the next working day, the Cover Note was signed by the petitioner herein. The petitioner further stated in the explanation that the cover note dated 13.05.1995 was issued by the petitioner as per the instructions of the then Senior Branch Manager purely in the interest of the Company without any motive. Therefore, it is submitted by the petitioner that the charge framed against the petitioner was baseless.

3. An Enquiry Officer was appointed to inquire into the charge and submitted his enquiry report dated 13.03.2003 holding that the charge framed against the petitioner had been proved. The third resp