- (1.) R. B. Misra, J. On 4-4-2003 an order was passed that if no assistance is rendered by the next date of hearing on behalf of the 'new India Assurance Co. Ltd. , then a cost of Rs. 1000/- shall be imposed each on the Chairman, New India Assurance Co. Bombay and Regional Manager, Regional Office, Delhi and a non- bailable warrant shall also be issued against the Chairman and the Regional Manger, New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
(2.) NOW in reference to the aforesaid order Sri Parmatma Rai has appeared on behalf of the respondent as a new Counsel. Heard also Sri Dhruva Narayan learned Counsel for the petitioner alongwith Sri Bala Krishna Narayana as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. The brief facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Inspector on 1st March, 1979 and was confirmed as Inspector Grade I vide letter dated 4th March, 1981 confirming him w. e. f. 30th June 1980. The petitioner remained suspended w. e. f. 24th August, 1982 to 20th August, 1983 on various charges as per letters dated 30th August, 1982 and 16th January, 1986 on various charges, inter alia for late deposit of premium charge in the dates of the cover notes, demanding illegal gratification in various claims, fall in premium from Rs. 49,094/- in the year 1986 against Rs. 1,46,309/- in the year 1985, misbehaviour with superiors, insubordination and disobedience. The petitioner was charge-sheeted on 26th August, 1982 and a departmental enquiry was conducted following which vide letter dated 20th August, 1983 the petitioner was awarded punishment. The petitioner was called by the vigilance officer in Delhi on 17/18th January,1986 to answer the various quaries as per the questionnaire, however, the petitioner did not submit any reply despite reminders dated 6-11-1986, 18-11-1986 and 8-1-1987. On 7th July, 1987 the Regional Manager (Competent Authority) issued a letter accompanied with statement of charges, statement of imputation of misconduct reported, list of witnesses and documents to the petitioner. The supply of said documents/papers was in satisfaction of provisions of para 25 (3) of the Central Insurance (Conduct Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975. The main charge which were levelled against the petitioner are abridged hereunder as (i) demanding Rs. 800 as illegal gratification from the insured one Mr. Vikram Singh with regard to settling the cattle claim and (ii) failure to furnish the required information tentamounting to insubordination and disobedience of the orders of the superiors. The respondent No. 2 was appointed as Enquiry officer by the competent authority and upon petitioner's request, the copy of the charge-sheet was translated in Hindi and served upon him allowed and all along the enquiry and thereafter the reasonable opportunity was provided to the petitioner to defend himself and his case. On 28th December, 1987 the domestic enquiry commenced and the petitioner took the enquiry lightly and in fact on some dates during proceedings, remained absent. The charges of demanding bribe and disobedience etc. were duly proved and it was found by the Regional Manager that the acts of omission and commission committed by the petitioner in breach of discipline were in fact grave misconduct which calls for major penalty thereby dismissal of the petitioner but the disciplinary authority was considerate in exercising its discretionary powers in a reasoned manner and awarded the penalty of removal only. The Enquiry Officer has held that the aforesaid charge has not been proved for the following reasons : (1) The physical transaction of money did not take place. (2) Though five witnesses were examined, the complainant i. e. , Mr. Vikram Singh could not be examined by the Presenting Officer since he had already expired. (3) Evidence of Mr. Vikram Singh was material since he was the Insured and Complainant. (4) Mr. Jayas was not in a position to settle the claim even if he had accepted Rs. 800 as illegal gratification. However, considering the materials in the file as well as the deposition of the witnesses, I do not agree with the Enquiry Officer. The witnesses namely Mr. Nandlal and Mr. Roshan Singh Ex-Sarpanch were present at the time when Mr. R. S. Jayas has demanded Rs. 800 from Mr. Vikram Singh. Mr. R. S. Bansal, Vigilance Officer during his investigation had obtained a written statement from Mr. Vikram Singh. The depositions of these witnesses cannot be ignored. Therefore, I hold that this charge against Mr. R. S. Jayas stands proved.
(3.) IN respect of the second charge where Mr. Jayas has disobeyed his superiors, the Enquiry Officer has held this charge proved. Though Mr. Jayas has stated that he has already submitted the replies to Mr. R. S. Bansal on 6-5-1988, he could not produce a copy of the same till the enquiry was concluded. Therefore, the disciplinary authority agreed with the Enquiry Officer for holding this charge as proved. After examining the charges framed in the present charge-sheet in natural course, the disciplinary authority had gone to spell the award by saying that there were at earlier two occasions when he was charge-sheeted for mis-conducts including : (1) Mis-appropriation of Rs. 1,748/-; (2) Mis-behaviour and fraudulent actions in the settlement of claims. After proper enquiry, according to the disciplinary authority these charges were proved. Since Mr. Jayas was to be reformed a lenient view was taken by the competent authority at that time.;