ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent virtually online.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was imposed with a punishment of reduction of basic pay by two stages vide order dated 04.01.2002. The petitioner was working as a Branch Manager in the respondent-Corporation at Shipyard, Visakhapatnam. The petitioner intended to take Jeevana Surakhsa Policy from the 5th respondent and paid the premium through a cheque. The details of the cheque issued by the petitioner towards premium was also submitted by the petitioner in Form-16 of I.T. returns. The applicable deduction was claimed in the income tax returns filed by the petitioner. The said cheque was returned as dishonored for insufficient funds and the petitioner was informed by the 5th respondent vide letter dated 11.04.2000. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 22.04.2000. A charge sheet was issued on 05.10.2000 alleging that the petitioner has misused his position as a Branch Manager and has signed Form-16 in the capacity of a Branch Manager which in turn would amount to violating the corporation regulations.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that had the petitioner been informed of the dishonor of the cheque and soon after receipt of information of the said dishonor of cheque the petitioner would have paid the cheque amount. It is also submitted that deduction claimed by the petitioner had paid the applicable tax for the mistake in claiming deduction.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has fairly admitted his mistake in not following up bank to ensure the cheque is honored. He has also admitted the lapse which was not intentional on part of the petitioner from his end. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the enquiry report was passed on the explanation submitted by the petitioner admitting the issue of dishonored of the cheque.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation long back and that all the service benefits were disbursed to the petitioner soon after he attained the age of superannuation. It is also submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that proceedings were initiated by the income tax department for the wrongfully claimed deduction. It is also submitted that the petitioner has paid income tax subsequently after initiation of proceedings by the I.T. department. Learned counsel submits that charges were proved against the petitioner and as such the proceedings initiated against the petitioner cannot be unsettled by this Court at this belated stage.

6. Point for consideration by this Court is:

Whether the respondent was justified in imposing the punishment of reduction of basic pay by two stages on the ground that the petitioner’s cheque for subscription to Jeevana Suraksha Policy for an amount of Rs.9,800/- was dishonored?

7. As seen from the impugned order, it is evident that the petitioner has given his reply to the show cause notice contending that he has remitted the applicable tax to the income tax to the department. The disciplinary authority has found that the explanation of the petitioner was not tenable and that he should have taken all precautions and necessary care to monitor his bank balance. It is also held that the petitioner has failed to maintain absolute integrity when the matter is pertaining to his own policy.

8. The respondent has introduced the Jeevan Suraksha Policy and it was open for any citizen of the country to subscribe for the same. The policy would be applicable and benefits of the policy would be disbursed to the insurer only after the premium amount is credited to the account of the respondent. For any policy for which the premium amount is not credited in time the benefits of the policy would not pass to the insurer or the nominee of the insurer. The respondents ought to have seen and considered the subscription of policy by the petitione