J.L. Puri vs United India Insurance Company and Another

L.N. Mittal, J.

CM No. 11205 of 2011

The application is allowed and annexed affidavit and documents Annexures P/11 to P/13 are taken on record subject to all just exceptions.

CWP No. 12971 of 2011

J.L. Puri who was in service of United India Insurance Company Limited (respondent no. 1) has by way of instant writ petition challenged two punishment orders dated 30.6.1994, Annexure P/1 and dated 24.3.1995 Annexure P/5 as well as the appellate orders dated 1.4.2011 Annexure P/4 and dated 16.3.2011 Annexure P10.

The petitioner was charge sheeted vide charge sheet dated 17.2.1993 for two charges i.e. remaining unauthorizedly absent for 3411/2 days and failing to appear before Medical Board for second medical examination. In regular inquiry, charge no. 1 was held partly proved to the extent of unauthorized absence for 174 days and charge no. 2 was held not proved. Punishing Authority vide impugned order dated 30.6.1994, Annexure P/1 imposed major penalty of reduction to lower post and reduction of basic pay to the starting basic pay applicable to that cadre and treating absence period of 174 days as not spent on duty.

Other charge sheet dated 9.10.1991 contained six articles of charge. Inquiry Officer held all the six charges to be proved. Punishing Authority vide impugned order dated 24.3.1995, Annexure P/5 imposed penalty of removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment.

Petitioner preferred departmental appeals against both the punishment orders. The said appeals have been dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide orders dated 1.4.2011 Annexure P/4 and dated 16.3.2011 Annexure P/10.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at fairly great length and perused the case file.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that in inquiry relating to punishment order Annexure P/5, the Inquiry Officer fixed the inquiry for evidence of the department for 11.4.1994 and 12.4.1994 but the petitioner received notice for the said dates on 14.4.1994 i.e. after expiry of the dates of hearing. It was also contended that the Inquiry Officer did not fix the inquiry for defence evidence of the petitioner delinquent although it was mandatory requirement of the relevant service rules. Reference in this regard was made to Sub Rules (13),(14), (15) and (16) of Rule 25 of the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1975. It was next contended that the Appellate Authority did not deal with the contentions raised by the petitioner in the departmental appeals and therefore, the appellate orders are vitiated. Opportunity of hearing was also not granted by the Punishing Authority or the Appellate Authority. Reliance in support of these contentions has been placed on two judgments of Division Bench of this Court namely The British India Corporation Ltd., New Egerton Woollen Mills Branch, Dhariwal, Distt. Gurdaspur vs. State of Punjab and Others 2004 (3) RSJ 96 and Gulab Singh vs. Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak and Others 2005 (1) RSJ 458.

I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions but the same cannot be accepted. As regards notice regarding date of hearing fixed by the Inquiry Officer for 11.4.1994 and 12.4.1994, the Inquiry Officer sent notice dated 8.3.1994 Annexure P/9 by registered post to the petitioner at his three addresses i.e. office address of New Delhi and residential addresses of Ludhiana as well as New Delhi. It has been noticed in the inquiry report that proof of service of the said notice on the petitioner had been received. Even the petitioner has not made any averment that he did not receive the said notice sent directly to him by the Inquiry Officer. On the other hand, Insurance Company also sent a copy of notice dated 8.3.1994 of the Inquiry Officer with forwarding letter dated 21.3.1994 Annexure P/8 to the petitioner. Petitioner''s averment is regarding receipt of the said notice Annexure P/8 on 14.4.1994. However, both the Punishing Authority and the Appellate Authority have observed that notice dated 8.3.1994, Annexure P/9 sent directly by the Inquiry Officer to the petitioner was duly received by him. However, in spite thereof the petitioner did not appear before the Inquiry Officer on 11.4.1994 and 12.4.1994. Consequently, no fault can be found with the inquiry proceedings on this count.

As regards fixing of date for defence evidence, the petitioner did not appear before the Inquiry Officer on 11.4.1994 and 12.4.1994 when the departmental evidence was concluded. The petitioner was proceeded ex parte in the inquiry on the said dates as he did not appear. Since the petitioner was not present in the inquiry, the case could not have been fixed for defence evidence. In addition to it, before fixing case for evidence of the department, Inquiry Officer required the petitioner to submit his list of documents and witnesses but the petitioner did not submit the same in spite of number of reminders. The matter does not rest here. Even after evidence of the department was recorded on 11.4.1994 and 12.4.1994, Inquiry Officer sent copy of daily order sheets and copy of depositions of the witnesses to the petitioner by registered post for his information and necessary action. Both the parties were also directed to submit their written briefs. Presenting Officer for the department was to submit the brief upto 18.4.1994 but the brief was received by the Inquiry Officer on 02.5.1994.

The petitioner was permitted to submit his brief upto 25.4.1994 but the petitioner did not submit any brief till 28.6.1994, the date of the inquiry report. Consequently, the petitioner cannot blame the Inquiry Officer for the situation in which he finds himself. The petitioner has to blame himself for the same. In the background of this factual position, it cannot be said that the relevant service rules have been violated.

As regards appellate orders, order dated 16.3.2011, Annexure P/10 is a detailed order and points raised by the petitioner in his departmental appeal have been dealt with by the Appellate Authority. As regards the other Appellate Authority order dated 1.4.2011 Annexure P/4, the points raised by the petitioner in the appeal were noticed and the same were rejected in view of the reasons recorded by the Disciplinary Authority in the punishment order. Order Annexure P/10 is a detailed order which is speaking and reasoned order. Order Annexure P/4 is not very detailed order but even in this order relevant facts have been noticed and points raised by the petitioner have also been noticed. Moreover, appellate order Annexure P/4 as well as the original punishment order Annexure P/1 pale into insignificance in view of second punishment order Annexure P/5 and appellate order Annexure P/10 which is a detailed order.

For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this writ petition. The impugned punishment orders and appellate orders cannot be said to be vitiated. Full opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner during inquiry but as per inquiry report dated 28.6.1994, Annexure P13, the petitioner himself did not appear before the Inquiry Officer.

For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant writ petition which is accordingly dismissed in limine.