- (1.) By filing the instant application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner, Dipak Kumar Lahiri, sought for a declaration that the provisions of Rules 42, 44 and 47 of the General Insurance (Employees') Pension Scheme, 1995 are ultra vires to Section 17A of the General Insurance Business (Nationalization) Act, 1972, Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The petitioner further sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from giving any effect and/or further effect of the impugned charge sheet dated 3rd October, 2002, the report of enquiry in pursuance of the said charge sheet and the final order of punishment dated 31st October, 2005. The petitioner sought for a direction upon the respondents for withdrawal of the charge sheet as well as the final order and the order dated 22nd January, 2007 passed by the respondent No. 3.
(2.) The backdrop of the present case may briefly be stated as follows:- The writ petitioner after retiring as Assistant Administrative Officer, National Insurance Corporation, was drawing pension @ Rs. 7,005/- per month. After 2 ' years of his retirement, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him by respondent No.5. A Memorandum of Charge dated 3rd October, 2002 was issued alleging that he was one of the cheque signatories who had signed six cheques favouring the persons not being insured. It was alleged that as a result of such wrongful action, there had been double payments in respect of such six matters. It resulted in wrongful loss to the company to the tune of Rs. 2,29,672/-. It was alleged that the petitioner, thus, had committed misconduct by failing to discharge his duties with utmost integrity and acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the company, which is unbecoming of a public servant. He contravened Rules 3(1)(i)(ii)(iii)(iv) and 3(2) of the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1975. It was further alleged that the petitioner, thus, committed misconduct under Rules 4(1), 4(5) and 4(21) of the said Rules. Respondent No. 3, thus, proposed to hold an enquiry against the writ petitioner under Rule 25 of the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1975 as amended up to date read with Rules 44 and 47 of the General Insurance (Employees') Pension Scheme, 1995.
(3.) In reply to such charges sheet, the petitioner expressed that it was impossible for him to give proper explanation at that belated stage unless he was given access to verify the cheques in question, the claim vouchers and other relevant documents. He also stated that he might have signed the cheques only after the same were prepared on verification of the vouchers and other documents by the accounts department and that too, as one of the signatories. The petitioner gave his remarks in respect of each and every imputation and certainly, without admitting any of those. The petitioner, thereafter, came to learn that such Memorandum of Charge were also issued to two existing employees of the Insurance Company, namely, Mr. S. Datta Gupta and Mr. P. Banerjee as well as another retired employee, Mr. N. K. Kundu. By an order dated 17th December, 2002, the Disciplinary Authority directed that the proceedings against all four of them would be held in common as per Rule 29 of General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1975. An Enquiry Officer was appointed in connection with such common proceeding as per Rule 25(6) of the said Rules. Such enquiry was held during the period from 16th April, 2003 to April, 2004. An enquiry report was submitted on 26th April, 2004 before the Disciplinary Authority. The Enquiry Officer in his enquiry report came to a finding that the charges against the petitioner stood proved. By letter dated 13th January, 2005, the Disciplinary Authority asked the petitioner to submit his representation. The petitioner submitted his representation by letter dated 2nd February, 2005. On 1st November, 2005, the petitioner received an order of punishment dated 31st October, 2005. The Disciplinary Authority in purported exercise of his powers conferred under Rule 26 of the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1975 as amended read with Rules 44 and 47 of the General Insurance (Employees') Pension Scheme, 1995 imposed 'major penalty' of 'permanent withdrawal of pension' against the writ petitioner.;