S.P.KURDUKAR, C.J. - (1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by United India Insurance Company Ltd. , (hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Company') challenging the correctness of the judgment and order dated February 21, 1991, passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 3232 of 1981. 2. Narinder Mohan Arya, respondent (the writ petitioner), in the year 1976 was working as Inspector Grade-II with the Insurance Company, the appellant. He filed Civil Writ Petition No. 3232 of 1981, challenging the legality and correctness of the order of removal from service made by the Insurance Company after holding disciplinary enquiry against him. The appellate and the revisional Authorities confirmed the order of removal of the petitioner from service. The disciplinary proceedings were taken up against the petitioner pursuant to the charge-sheet dated 11. 1. 1978 (Annexure 'a') to Annexure P3 to the writ Petition. Articles of charges read thus : "m/s Aman Singh Munshi Lal of Hansi despatched a consignment of 50 bales of cotton from Hansi to Phulwari Sharif through Hansi Public Carriers Union, Hansi on 21. 10. 1976. While the aforesaid bales of cotton were lying at Delhi-Gaziabad border in the compound of M/s. Milap Transport Roadways in transit to destination, on 22nd October, 1976, at about 11. 45 A. M. , a fire broke out in which the said bales were burnt. On being approached by or on behalf of M/s. Aman Singh Munshi Lal to issue an insurance cover in respect of the aforesaid bales after fire had broken out and knowing that fire had broken out in which the said bales had been burnt, Narinder Mohan Arya, issued cover note No. 009643 covering a risk of Rs. On lac in respect of the aforesaid cotton bales purporting to show that the same had been issued on 21. 10. 1976 even though the same had been issued after the fire broke out on 22nd October, 1976 at about 11. 45 A. M. " In the opinion of the Senior Divisional Manager of the Insurance Company, the appellant, the above act of Narinder Mohan Arya, is an act of misconduct which falls under Sub-rule (1), (5) and (20) of Rule 4 of the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules,1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1975 Rules') Narinder Mohan Arya denied the charges. He filed a detailed written statement on 25. 1. 1978, in which he has stated that he issued the insurance cover note on 21. 10. 1976, and he had not either ante-dated or prepared the same after fire was broken out.
(2.) ON the basis of the above charges, Inquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and after examining the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the Parties, vide his report dated 5. 5. 1979, Annexure P5, held that the insurance cover note was actually issued on 22. 10. 1976, that is, after it was known to the insured that his goods had been damaged by fire. Hence, the charges levelled against Narinder Mohan Arya were proved and, accordingly, the Inquiry Officer held him guilty of the charge of ante-dating the cover note in question. The Divisional Manager thereafter gave opportunity to the writ petitioner to give his written explanation as regards the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer. The Divisional Manager vide his communication dated 24. 7. 1979, Annexure P6, accepted the findings given by the Inquiry Officer, and in view of seriousness of the misconduct of Narinder Mohan Arya, awarded the punishment of removal from service. (See Annexure P6 ). On 28. 8. 1979, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority but the same was dismissed on 15. 10. 1980. Thereafter. Narinder Mohan Arya preferred memorial, which was also rejected on 23. 4. 1981. It is this action of the Insurance Company, which was sought to be challenged in the writ petition filed sometime in February 1981. The learned Single Judge vide his impugned judgment and order dated February 21, 1991, allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of removal of Narinder Mohan Arya from service. It is this judgment and order of the learned Single. Judge, which is subject matter of challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal.
(3.) THE learned Single Judge has mainly relied upon a finding recorded in suit No. 59 of 1978, filed by M/s. Aman Singh Munshi Lal against the Insurance Company, Narinder Mohan Arya and two others. In that suit, Aman Singh Munshi Lal have prayed for a decree for Rs. 1. 22,795. 64/- on the basis of insurance cover note dated 21. 10. 1976. In that suit an issue was framed as to 'whether the insurance cover note dated 21. 10. 1976 was antedated in collusion with Narinder Mohan Arya, or it was executed on 21. 10. 1976. ' The learned Sub Judge vide his judgment dated 7. 10. 1980 held that the insurance cover note was issued by Narinder Mohan Arya on 21. 10. 1976 and it was not ante-dated. The learned Sub Judge decreed the suit partly to the extent of a sum of Rs. 98,550. 16. with 6% per cent interest form the date of decree till realization. The insurance Company carried appeal to the District Court Hissar. M/s. Aman Singh Munshi Lal also filed cross-objections as they were not satisfied with the rate of interest. The District Judge by his judgment dated 4. 10. 1982 dismissed the appeal as well as the cross-objections. The Insurance Company preferred second appeal No. RSA 2530 of 1982 in this Court, in which M/s. Aman Singh Munshi Lal also preferred cross-objections. The second appeal as well as the present LPA were heard one after the other and by our judgment and order dated 16th March, 1994, we dismissed the second appeal as well as the cross-objections. Thus, the net result in the civil proceedings, which were in essence collateral, a finding is recorded between the parties, to which the Insurance Company as well as Narinder Mohan Arya were also Parties, that the Insurance cover note dated 21. 10. 1976 was not ante-dated but it was in fact issued in favour of M/s. Aman Singh Munshi Lal (plaintiff in the suit) on 21. 10. 1976. As stated earlier, the learned Single Judge while disposing of CWP No. 3232 of 1981, mainly relied Upon the findings recorded by the learned Sub Judge and the learned District Judge that the insurance cover note dated 21. 10. 1976 was not ante-dated and it is a genuine document. In view of this finding in the civil proceedings, the learned Single Judge opined that there could not be any inconsistent finding especially when the Civil Court has adjudicated the issue as regards the correctness of the insurance cover note. The finding of the Civil Court must be given effect to, and accordingly, he allowed the writ petition, set aside the orders of the authorities of the Insurance Company removing Narinder Mohan Arya from service. This is how, the present LPA has been filed, challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge.;