DEBASISH KAR GUPTA , J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against a judgment dated May 14, 2010 passed in the matter of Dipak Kumar Lahiri vs. National Insurance Company Limited & Ors. (in re: W.P. No.1708 of 2006). By virtue of the impugned judgment the above writ application was dismissed on contest.
(2.) The subject matter of challenge in the above writ application was an order dated October 31, 2005, passed by the respondent no.5 against the appellant under the General Insurance (Employees') Pension Scheme, 1995, in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 26 of the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1975 as amended up to date (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules, 1975) read with paragraphs 44 and 47 of the General Insurance (Employees') Pension Scheme, 1995 as amended up to date (hereinafter referred to as the said Scheme, 1995) imposing major penalty of "permanent withdrawal of pension" against the appellant, an administrative officer (retired). The appellant preferred a statutory appeal dated January 11, 2006 against the above order. The above appeal was dismissed by the respondent no.3 by an order dated January 22, 2007.
(3.) The above order dated October 31, 2005 was passed in connection with a proceeding initiated against the appellant on the basis of a memorandum dated October 3, 2002 issued by the respondent no.5 proposing to hold enquiry against the appellant under Rule 25 of the said Rules, 1975 read with paragraphs 44 and 47 of the said Scheme, 1995. The substance of the imputation of misconduct in respect of which the enquiry was proposed to be held was that while functioning as Administrative Officer, at Divisional Office -IX, Kolkata, during the period 1999 -2000, the appellant had committed the following misconduct: - (i) While working in the Motor Department of the respondent no.1, the appellant committed fraud by preparing six Motor Claims Disbursement Vouchers without obtaining the approval from the competent authority, without involving department assistant and without ensuring the existence of a claim filed in favour of the recipient of the amount preparing, checking and mentioning as "Approved by CA" in all the six Motor Claim Disbursement Vouchers favouring person, no way connected with the insured, whereas against the same claim number, the actual insured had separately been reimbursed the claim amount as per procedure. (ii) The appellant being the cheque signature authority had signed all the aforesaid cheques as one of the signatory favouring a person not being insured. Due to the wrongful actions of the appellant six double payments were made causing wrongful loss to the respondent no.1 to the tune of Rs.2,29,672/ -. ;