Pratap Kumar Ray, J. - (1.) In this writ application the petitioner has challenged the Inquiry Report dated 26th December, 2002 submitted by the Inquiry Officer with reference to a departmental proceeding, punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority by its order dated 3rd September, 2003 and the order of confirmation of such decision of disciplinary authority by the appellate authority by its order dated 29th September, 2003 and the decision dated 7th July, 2004 by disposing of the "memorial" as filed as per statute, which is nothing but in the nature of review by the superior authority that is the highest authority of the organization of National Insurance Company Limited, namely, the Chairman cum Managing Director confirming the decision of punishment.
(2.) The petitioner has prayed for the following relief's: (a) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus do issue directing the respondent authorities to act in accordance with law and to cancel and/or set aside and/or recall and/or quash the impugned enquiry report dated 26.12.2002 made by the Enquiry Officer, the order dated 3.9.2003 made by the disciplinary authority and the order dated 29.12.2003 made by the appellate authority and the memorial disposed of by the respondent No. 2 on 7.7.2004; (b) A writ of and/or in the nature of Certiorari do issue directing the respondent authorities to certify and transmit to this Hon'ble Court all records and papers relating to the instant case, so that the same may be perused and conscionable justice may be rendered; (c) A writ of and/or in the nature of prohibition do issue prohibiting the respondent authorities from acting in terms of or ii) pursuance of or on the basis of the impugned enquiry report dated 26.12.2002 made by the Enquiry Officer, the order dated 3.9.2003 made by the disciplinary authority and the order dated 29.12.2003 made by the appellate authority. (d) Rule Nisi in terms of prayers above; (e) Rule Nisi be made absolute if no cause or if no sufficient cause be shown by the respondents; (f) Stay of operation of the order dated 3.9.2003 made by the disciplinary authority; (g) Stay of operation of the order dated 29.12.2003 made by the appellate authority; (h) The respondent No. 1 be directed to pay your petitioner's monthly salary of Rs. 22.000/ - in full with all previous dues/salaries as per the Service Contract dated April, 1971 without any deductions; (i) Ad interim orders in terms of prayers above; (j) Costs of and incidental to this application be paid by the respondents; (k) Such further or other order or orders, be made and/or direction or directions be given us to this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. Fact of the writ application.
(3.) The petitioner while acting as Development Officer in Division -XVII of the National Insurance Company Limited hereinafter referred to as insurance Company faced departmental proceeding initiated in terms of the charge -sheet dated 2nd April, 2002 alleging, inter alia, thereto that the petitioner failed to maintain devotion to duty and thereby committed misconduct prejudicial to the interest of the Company, which is unbecoming of a public servant, along with charge of misappropriation of Rs. 31,735/ -as collected as actual insurance premium under comprehensive cover for one year from the different insured's. In the statement of imputation of misconduct, specific particulars were mentioned, giving the names of the insured's whose comprehensive cover notes were changed in the office copy showing a third partly premium for one month only by tampering the original cover notes. In response to such charge -sheet dated 2nd April, 2002 the petitioner did not deny the statement of imputation under Annexurc -2 but submitted that in view of the usual practice for procurement of business for the Company from the motor car dealer, namely, M/s. Ritchie Motors, the petitioner relied the dealer about preparation of the papers on proposals and cover notes and it was done as per usual practice. Petitioner, accordingly, prayed tor lenient consideration of the lapses by condoning the irregularities by submitting his reply dated 25th April, 2002. The preliminary enquiry was held by the Inquiry Officer on 6th September, 2002 when the petitioner pleaded guilty and did not deny the documents. However, the departmental proceeding initiated and petitioner wanted an assistance of a co -employee, which was rejected. After holding the domestic inquiry, the Inquiry Officer though held that the petitioner was guilty of the charges out in the finding it was mentioned that us the premium were tendered by cheques. there was no scope to defalcate and/or misappropriate the amount of premium and the disciplinary authority suspected that the operation to defraud the Company was done by the dealer with the tacit support and approval of the petitioner, the delinquent. The Inquiry Report was served and the petitioner made a reply thereof. Punishment was imposed by the disciplinary authority under the Service Regulation of company by demoting the petitioner to Grade -II rank fixing the basic pay to the minimum of that scale as well as directing recovery of the amount of Rs. 31,735/ - Against such punishment, petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority who confirmed the decision of the disciplinary authority and thereafter a memorial was filed, which was also rejected. Petitioner alleged in the writ petition that there was violation of principle of natural justice as no opportunity was given to place the petitioner's case through one of his colleagues in terms of the Service Regulation, that when there was a finding of the Inquiry Officer himself that petition or did not defraud the Company as the amounts were accepted by cheque and further when as per usual practice the petitioner out of anxiety to increase the business when adopted such policy, there was little scope to pass any penalty in the nature of demotion to Group -II scale as well as realization of the amount allegedly defrauded.;