Sunil Kumar and Another vs Asstt. General Manager, D.R.O. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Others

Ajay Tewari, J.—By this petition the petitioners have challenged the order of removal dated - 19.09.1999 and the Appellate order dated 28.01.2000 rejecting their appeal. Both the petitioners were appointed in the National Insurance Company. As part of their duty they had to purchase stamps to be affixed on policies. For that purpose bearer cheques were handed over to them. The Audit department discovered that the petitioners had withdrawn more money but had purchased stamps for less money. When the petitioners were initially confronted with the same they admitted to their fault, deposited some of the amounts and prayed that they should be excused. The respondents started regular inquiry proceedings against the petitioners and having found them guilty, punished them as above. Hence the present petition.

The main argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that actually the petitioners were innocent and were browbeaten and fooled into making the inculpatory statements referred to in the reply. As per learned counsel for the petitioners, they were assured that if they admitted to the fraud and deposited the amounts in question they would be exonerated. This assertion has been denied in the written statement. It is a pure question of fact and in view of the stout denial of the respondents the same is held against the petitioners.

Once I hold that the petitioners did not make the inculpatory statements under any pressure it has to be held that they have admitted to their offence. Thereafter, the respondents could have straightway punished them without going through the rigmarole of regular inquiry. However, the regular inquiry did take place. During the regular inquiry the cheques on the basis of which the petitioners withdrew the money and the challan forms on the basis of which they purchased the stamps could not be placed in evidence because they were lying in the bank and the Treasury office respectively.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that non production of these documents goes to the root of the matter and on this core alone the inquiry is vitiated.

Learned counsel for the respondents has however argued that admittedly these documents were not in possession of the respondents and that despite the grant of specific opportunities to inspect the original documents the petitioners did not inspect the same. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioners had nowhere asserted that the cheques in question were not issued to them or that they had not withdrawn the amounts pursuant thereto or that it was not their job to purchase the stamps from the Treasury. As per the learned counsel, once these facts are not disputed even the non-production of these documents would have no impact on the inquiry.

In my opinion, the argument of learned counsel for the respondents carries more weight. In the first place, in view of the unequivocal inculpation by the petitioners there is no requirement to have gone through the full fledged inquiry. Secondly in the inquiry, in my considered opinion, it cannot be said that the petitioners have been found delinquent in the inquiry without any evidence. The hyper technical argument regarding the non-production of the cheques and challan forms cannot help the petitioners because they have not denied that the cheques were not issued or that they had not withdrawn the amounts. It cannot be lost sight of that the cheques and challan forms were not in the custody of the department. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the number of judgments has laid down the strict parameters for judicial review of such administration action and have cautioned the Courts that judicial review does not entail findings of an appellate nature.

In Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and another Vs. Ashok Kumar Arora, , the Hon''ble Supreme Court held as follows:--

.......At the outset it needs to be mentioned that the High Court in such cases of departmental enquiries and the findings recorded therein does not exercise the powers of appellate court/Authority. The jurisdiction of the High Court in such cases is very limited. For instance where it is found that the domestic enquiry is vitiated because of non-observance of principles of natural justice, denial of reasonable opportunity; findings are based on no evidence, and or the punishment is totally disproportionate to the proved misconduct of an employee. There is catena of judgments of this Court which had settled the law on this topic and it is not necessary to refer to all these decisions. Suffice it to refer to a few decisions of this Court on this topic viz., State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Sree Rama Rao, , State of Andhra Pradesh and Others Vs. Chitra Venkata Rao, , Corporation of the City of Nagpur, Civil Lines, Nagpur and another Vs. Ramchandra and others, , and Nelson Motis Vs. Union of India and another, .

In Nagarjuna Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and Others, , the Hon''ble Supreme Court held that the Court cannot substitute its judgment for the judgment of administrative authorities and only when the action of the administrative authority is so unfair or unreasonable that no reasonable person would have taken that action, can the court interfere.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to persuade me that the findings recorded against the petitioners are based on no evidence. In the circumstances, in view of the dictum of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, as reproduced above, this writ petition has to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly. Since the main case has been decided, the pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.