ORDER :

M. Govindaraj, J.

1. The petitioner was appointed as Development Officer Grade II on 06.07.1994 and was promoted as Grade I with effect from 01.08.1995. While he was working as Development Officer (Admin) the Division Officer Eluru, departmental proceeding was initiated for certain lapses on two counts. The gravamen of the charges was that he issued cover notes and collected the premium from the insure and failed to pay the same to the office and thereby committed temporary misappropriation of funds. Though it was admitted that he issued cover notes and collected money, according to the petitioner, the delayed payment was due to the lapse on the part of the insurance agent by name one V.V. Sathyanarayana. Even though, the said agent has filed an affidavit before the enquiry officer to that effect, it was not considered by the enquiry officer and the charges were held proved. The Disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of removal from service. On appeal it was confirmed by the Appellate authority also. Aggrieved over the same, petitioner is before this Court.

2. The writ petitioner, inter alia raised various grounds and contend non following of the procedure as enshrined under Art. 311 of the Constitution of India vitiate entire proceedings. Though elaborate argument was made touching upon the merits of the punishment order passed, the learned counsel would raise the preliminary issue of lack of jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. Accordingly to him, the High Court of Karnataka in its order in Crl. A. Nos. 933 C/W 835/2010 dated 01.03.2012 has held that The General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the 'GI (CDA) Rules') was not placed before the Parliament and no gazette notification was issued and therefore any action taken under the said rule is not valid. In view of the same, the punishment imposed against the petitioner in the instant case under Rule 23 of the GI (CDA) Rules is also invalid unenforceable and the punishment order should be set aside. He would also rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Crl. A. Nos. 1872-1873 of 2014 dated 03.11.2015. Confirming the above order holding that the Rules were not gazetted at any point of time and made applicable to the employees of the said insurance company. On finding so, confirming the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka dismissed the appeals preferred by the insurance company. Therefore, a contention is made that the very application of the rules and the order of punishment passed by the respondents is illegal and without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside.

3. Per contra the learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents would produce the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) dated 20.09.1972 and the Scheme framed under the General Insurance (Termination, Superannuation and retirement of Officers and Development staff) Scheme, 1976 and Amendments (hereinafter referred to as "scheme") dated 21.09.1976.

4. According to the learned Senior counsel as per Sec. 16 of the Act 57 of 1972 the Central Government may, by notification frame one or more schemes with regard to rationalisation of General Insurance business. As per Sec. 17A, by notification scheme regarding the terms and conditions of service of officers and other employees can be framed.

5. Accordingly, the above said Scheme was framed on 21.09.1976. As per sub-clause 4(a) of the scheme, the Corporation or the company is entitled to frame their own Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules with regard to the Development staff and the power to retire, remove or dismiss an officer or Development staff in accordance with GI (CDA) Rules framed by them will not affect the right of the Appointing authority to do so.

6. As per the above Sub clause 4(a), power to frame rules has been conferred on the Corporation or individual subsidiary companies. Since the scheme was already notified, the rul