The court dismissed a writ petition challenging an employee's removal and recovery order. Finding no illegality in the charge-sheet procedure or hearing, the court refused to interfere with the departmental proceedings.
The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.W.P. No.10030 of 2009 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No.10030 of 2009 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION: JULY 10, 2009
Kulwant Singh
.....PETITIONER
Versus
National Insurance Company Limited and others
....RESPONDENTS
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
Present: Mr.Nachhatter Singh Bains, Advocate, for the petitioner.
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J.
The petitioner, who was an employee of the National Insurance Company Limited, has filed the instant petition for quashing the order dated 2.9.2008 (Annexure P11) whereby he has been removed from the service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment, and has also been ordered to recover an amount of Rs.2,07,923/- from him. The petitioner has also challenged the orders dated 12.2.2009 (Annexure P13) and 16.6.2009 (Annexure P15) whereby his appeal and Memorial against the aforesaid order of penalty have been rejected.
I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned orders.
Counsel for the petitioner could not point out any illegality or irregularity in the issuance of charge-sheet, conducting of the enquiry proceedings and the procedure adopted in passing the impugned order of
C.W.P. No.10030 of 2009 (O&M) -2-
penalty. Sufficient opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner to contest the allegations levelled against him. After considering the evidence led by the parties, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 13.11.2007 with the findings that the charges levelled against the petitioner stood proved.
During the course of arguments, counsel for the petitioner argued that the Disciplinary Authority should have initiated disciplinary proceedings against all the persons, who were involved in the alleged charges, simultaneously, but in the instant case, two other employees, against whom there were sufficient allegations, were charge-sheeted after a gap of three years, therefore, Rule 29 of the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1975 has been violated. He further argued that the enquiry against the petitioner was conducted in hasty manner by the respondents without providing proper opportunity of hearing to defend the allegations levelled against him.
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the impugned orders as well as the contents of the petition, I do not find any merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel. The petitioner has not shown any prejudice having been caused to him for proceeding separately against two officers because the allegations against those two officers were slightly different, therefore, by issuing separate charge-sheet against those two officers, no illegality was committed. A perusal of the impugned orders and the contents of the petition show that the petitioner was provided sufficient opportunity to defend his case. The Disciplinary Authority after taking into consideration the allegations levelled against the petitioner, the report of the Inquiry Officer and after
C.W.P. No.10030 of 2009 (O&M) -3-
considering each and every evidence as well as the material available on the record, has come to the aforesaid conclusion. No procedural illegality or irregularity has been pointed out by the petitioner in passing of the aforesaid order. No case of interference in the impugned orders in exercise of the writ jurisdiction has been made out by the counsel for the petitioner.
No merits. Dismissed.
July 10, 2009 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkg JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether separate disciplinary proceedings against co-accused with a time gap violated Rule 29 of the General Insurance Conduct Rules.
Whether the inquiry officer provided sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Whether the disciplinary authority committed any procedural illegality warranting interference in its orders.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kulwant Singh
National Insurance Company Limited and others
Satis Kumar Mittal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
