IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Date : 01.09.2022 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR W.P.No.3356 of 2018 C.Robert Vincent ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Chairman cum Managing Director The Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., Head Office, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi.

2. The General Manager The Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., Head Office, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi.

3. The Deputy General Manager The Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., P.B.No.1877, UIL Building, IV Floor, No.4, Esplanade, Chennai. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the third respondent Dept : Personnel, dated 20.09.2013 and the consequential order passed by the second respondent Ref No:517-A, dated 09.02.2016 and the consequent order passed by the first respondent Ref No:471-M, dated 27.10.2017 and quash the same and direct the respondent to allow the petitioner to retire and pay all his salary, promotion, terminal benefits core and noncore benefits to the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.Ebenezer Paul for Mr.P.Ganesan For Respondents : Mr.C.K.Chandrasekar Standing Counsel

O R D E R

The facts of the case as averred in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are as follows :

(i) The petitioner was working as Administrative Officer at the respondent company at its Divisional Office, Tirunelveli. At that time, the Central Bureau of Investigation, i.e., CBI registered a case against the Cashier and Office Assistant of the company for misappropriation of Rs.9 lakhs of the company's fund. Both these staff were not subordinate to the petitioner.

(ii) However after investigation, when the CBI filed charge sheet before the CBI Court at Madurai, the petitioner also had been included as Accused No.3 along with the two staff who stood as A1 and A2.

(iii) Simultaneously there has been a Disciplinary Proceedings initiated against the petitioner by the respondent company, pursuant to which, charge memo was issued against the petitioner, as if that the petitioner along with other two staff conspired to misappropriate the company's fund and based on which, enquiry was conducted.

(iv) Based on the Enquiry Officer's Report and after having given opportunity of hearing to the petitioner who has given his defence and reply to the said charge memo, not satisfied with the same, the Disciplinary Authority, i.e., the third respondent passed an order on 20.09.2013 imposing the maximum punishment of removal of service on the petitioner.

(v) As against the said order of punishment imposed by the third respondent, Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner preferred Appeal to the second respondent who is the First Appellate Authority on 02.12.2013 and the said appeal was decided by the second respondent Appellate Authority by order, dated 09.02.2016, where the Appellate Authority also having confirmed the order of punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority, has rejected the Appeal filed by the petitioner.

(vi) Aggrieved over the said order passed by the second respondent Appellate Authority, the petitioner preferred further Appeal to the first respondent on 24.02.2017, which was also rejected by the first respondent through the order, dated 27.10.2017, confirming the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the First Appellate Authority.

(vii) Challenging these orders, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the prayer to quash these orders and give a suitable direction to the respondents, since the petitioner has already superannuated, to pay the retiral and pensionary benefits payable to the petitioner. That is how this writ petition has been filed.

2. Opposing the said averments made in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, the respondents filed counter affidavit, where they have stated that, there was a charge memo issued against the petitioner, dated 20.07.2005 along with the two