SIBA PRASAD CHAKRABORTY Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
LAWS(CAL)-2011-8-98
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on August 03,2011

SIBA PRASAD CHAKRABORTY Appellant
VERSUS
NATIONAL INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The Petitioner, Siba Prasad Chakraborty has come to this Court with a prayer that the Respondents be forbidden to proceed with the Charge-sheet dated 15.12.2005; the Order of punishment dated 04.09.2009 and the Order dated 25.3.2010 rejecting the Appeal. The Petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the said Charge-sheet and the Orders with a further prayer that the Respondents be directed to disburse the arrears of salary and other service 2 benefits to him without giving effect to the Order of punishment dated 4.9.2009. The Petitioner has also prayed for an Order Commanding upon the Respondents to release and disburse the stagnation increments which were due to the Petitioner in the years 2006-2009 and then, to consider his case for promotion in accordance with law.
(2.) The case of the Petitioner, as per pleadings, is that he was transferred to Division- XIII under the then Eastern Regional Office, Kolkata, National Insurance Company Limited as an Assistant (Typist). He was again transferred in 1984 in the same capacity to the Bidhannagar Branch and from there, to the Sealdah Branch as an Assistant (Clerk) in the year 1988. He was promoted in 1991 to the post of a Senior Assistant and posted at the Sealdah Branch and in 1998, he was transferred to the Kolkata Regional Office-I; 8, India Exchange Place, Kolkata-700001 as a Senior Assistant. The Petitioner is married to Mrs. Bulbul Chakraborty, who is self employed and has been carrying on business in soft toys under the name and style of M/s. S. S. Enterprise. According to the Petitioner, the said business, at present, is running at a loss. In connection with her own business, Mrs. Bulbul Chakraborty had several Marine Transit Insurance Policies through Division-IX of the said National Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the said Company). These Insurance Policies were in her individual capacity. During the period 1999 to 2000, some Claims were lodged on her behalf and they were against Policies taken by her in the name of S. S. Enterprise. The said Claims 3 were settled by Division-IX of the Company by 3 (three) Cheques being Cheque No. 3929750 dated 13.3.2000 issued in favour of Mrs. Bulbul Chakraborty for a sum of Rs. 42,150/-; Cheque No. 185305 dated 22.2.1999 issued in favour of M/s. S. S. Enterprise for a sum of Rs. 38,875/- and Cheque No. 392730 dated 01.03.2000 in favour of M/s. S. S. Enterprise for a sum of Rs. 38, 000/-. The Petitioner received the said Cheques for and on behalf of the insured i.e. his wife Mrs. Bulbul Chakraborty and/or the Firm of his wife namely M/s. S.S. Enterprise from the concerned Office of Division-IX of the Company and deposited them in the Bank Account of his wife and his wife's Firm being M/s. S. S. Enterprise with Canara Bank, Canning Street Branch. At no point of time, the wife of the Petitioner lodged any protest with Division-IX alleging non receipt of the amounts or that the Petitioner was not authorised by her to receive the said Cheques on her behalf. It is the further case of the Petitioner that he acted as a representative of his wife for merely receiving the Cheques on her behalf and did not act in the capacity of an employee of the Company and that he was never transferred to Division-IX and also never worked, even for a temporary period or under any stop-gap measure or arrangement in the said Division-IX Office at any point of time during his entire service period. These have been stated in Paras-7 and 10 of the Writ Petition.
(3.) However, on 15.12.2005, he was surprised to receive a Memorandum proposing to initiate Disciplinary Proceedings for imposing major penalty in terms of Rule 25 of the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline & 4 Appeal) Rules, 1975 on the allegation that he had failed to discharge his duties with utmost integrity and had acted in a manner unbecoming of a public servant thereby contravening Rule 3 (I), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of the said Discipline and Appeal Rules and had thus committed a grave misconduct punishable under the provisions of Rule 4 (i) (v) and 21 of the said Rules.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.