IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 01.07.2022

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY

AND

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD

W.A.NO.484 OF 2020

1. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director,

United India Insurance Company Ltd.,

Reg.Head Office,

No.24, Whites Road,

Chennai – 600 014.

2. The Deputy General Manager,

United India Insurance Company Ltd.,

No.24 Whites Road,

Chennai – 600 014.

3. The Chief Regional Manager,

United India Insurance Company Ltd.,

Regional Office,

Visakhapatnam.

... Appellants

Vs

K.Rajendra Kumar

... Respondent

Appeal preferred under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against

the order dated 17.02.2020 made in W.P.No.29645 of 2011.

Prayer in W.P.No.29645 of 2011:-

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified mandamus,

calling for the records of the 3^rd respondent pertaining to the

order No.VRO:MKTG:03:2009 dated 06.04.2009 removing the

petitioner from service, and the records of the 2^nd respondent

pertaining to the order No.Ho:2007-14:07 dated 01.02.2010 and

the records of the 1^st respondent pertaining to the order No.HO-

2007-14-03/2010 dated 18.01.2011 and quash the same and

consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner

into service with all consequential benefits.

For Appellants

:

Mr.AL.Somayaji,

Senior Advocate

for Mr.V.Perumal

For Respondent

:

Mr.E.J.Ayyappan

JUDGMENT

(Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.)

1.

Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated

17.02.2020 recorded on W.P.No.29645 of 2011. This appeal is by

the respondent in the writ petition – the employer.

2.

Heard Mr.AL.Somayaji, learned Senior Advocate assisted

by Mr.V.Perumal for the appellant and Mr.E.J.Ayyappan, learned

advocate for the contesting respondent / writ petitioner.

3.

The relevant facts are as under:-

3.1

The writ petitioner was appointed in the year 1994 as

Development Officer (Grade II) by the appellant / United India

Insurance Company. He was thereafter promoted as Development

Officer (Grade I). While he was working on the said post, the

Management of the company found that he had indulged in some

misconduct, for which charge-memo was issued to him on

09.04.2007. On denial of the charges, inquiry officer was

appointed vide order dated 20.09.2007. On the basis of the

material on record and after giving opportunity to the

delinquent to respond to it, the inquiry officer arrived at the

conclusion that the charges leveled against the delinquent were

proved, which was recorded in the report dated 11.08.2008. The

writ petitioner responded to the said finding vide letter dated

27.11.2008. On the basis of the material, the Disciplinary

Authority passed an order on 06.04.2009, ordering imposition of

major punishment of removal from service.

3.2

The delinquent filed appeal as provided under the Rules

on 19.06.2009 and the said appeal was rejected on 01.02.2010 by

the appellate authority. The disciplinary proceeding thus

attained finality departmentally. There is also provision of

filing mercy petition which was also resorted to by the

petitioner and even that came to be rejected on 18.01.2011. It

is under these circumstances, writ petition was filed before

this Court assailing these three orders i.e., orders dated

18.01.2011, 01.02.2010 and the first punishment order dated

06.04.2009. Learned Single Judge has set aside the punishment

order dated 06.04.2009 and has ordered reinstatement of the writ

petitioner. It is this order, which is under challenge in this

appeal.

4.

Learned Senior Advocate for the appellant / Insurance

Company – the employer has submitted that, the only ground on

which the writ petition is allowed is that, the set of Rules

under which action is taken is treated by learned Single Judge a

nullity, since the same was not notified by the Government in

the