Natural justice does not mandate a personal hearing at the appellate stage of a departmental enquiry unless statutory rules require it or the appellate authority proposes an enhanced penalty. Additionally, an employee who collects terminal benefits is estopped from challenging the validity of his removal from service.

Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced: Full Judgment

****

ROHIT KAPOOR , J.

The instant Letters Patent Appeal under clause X of the Letters Patent has been filed against the judgment and order dated 18.08.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP-12971-2011, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner was dismissed in limine. The appellant was an employee of the United India Insurance Company Limited-respondent No.1, who was removed from service vide order dated 24.03.1995.

FACTUAL MATRIX

Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the appellant joined the services of Vulcan Insurance Company Limited in the year 1970 and was appointed as Assistant Branch Secretary with respondent No.1, after the merger of Vulcan Insurance Company Limited with respondent No.1 upon nationalization of the insurance business. Over the years, he rose through the ranks and was working as Senior Divisional Manager at the Delhi Divisional Branch in the year 1988. As per the appellant, the division headed by him was awarded the first prize on account of overall best performance in the year 1988, and his service record was consistently ‘good’, ‘very good’, and ‘excellent’ throughout his career.

Two sets of disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellant. The first arose from a charge-sheet dated 09.10.1991 (Charge-sheet No.1) involving six articles of charge relating to alleged irregularities in the settlement of motor vehicle insurance claims, while the appellant was posted as Divisional Manager at Ludhiana. While the first five charges pertained to alleged payments of false/fraudulent motor claims, irregular settlement, and passing of exaggerated claims, charge No.6 related to unauthorized payment of agency commission to the tune of Rs.1,90,061/- to various agents during 1986 to 1988 instead of giving special discount to the insured.

During the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings arising from the charge-sheet No.1, another charge-sheet dated 17.02.1993 (Charge-sheet No.2) was issued against the appellant-petitioner, which alleged:

(i) unauthorized absence for about 341 days during 1991–93; and

(ii)failure to appear before the Medical Board at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi, for a second medical examination.

An enquiry was conducted in pursuance to charge-sheet No.2 and as per the Enquiry Officer’s report dated 03.02.1994, charge No.1 stood partly proved to the extent that the appellant was held guilty of unauthorized absence for a period of 174 days, while charge No.2 was not proved. The disciplinary authority vide order dated 30.06.1994 imposed a major penalty of reduction to a lower post i.e. Assistant Manager and reduction of his basic pay to the starting of basic pay applicable to that cadre. It was further directed that the period of unauthorized absence shall not be counted for any other service benefits.

In the enquiry proceedings pertaining to charge-sheet No.1, the Enquiry Officer, after conducting the enquiry, submitted his enquiry report dated 28.06.1994, holding all six articles of charge as proved. The disciplinary authority, vide order dated 24.03.1995, imposed a major penalty of removal from service, which shall not be a disqualification for future employment.

The appellant allegedly filed departmental appeals against both the penalty orders, on 05.10.1994 and 26.05.1995. He claims to have filed additional points of appeal on 06.07.2006 and 09.07.2006 respectively. As the appellant claimed that his appeals were not being accorded consideration, he approached the Writ Court by filing CWP-10030-2003 inter alia praying for a direction for reinstatement or, in the alternative, for adjudication of his appeals. Respondent No.1 in its response, denied the claim of the appellant that any such appeals were ever filed by him. The aforesaid writ petition came to be disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order d