Hemant Gupta, J. - (1.) THE challenge in the present writ petition is to the order Annexure P -6 dated 14th January, 2004 and order in appeal Annexure P -8 dated 20.1.2005.
(2.) THE petitioner was working as Development Officer in the Divisional Office of National Insurance Company at Jalandhar. The employees of the respondent company are governed by General Insurance (Conduct, Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). It is the case of the petitioner that in terms of Rule 23(d) of the Rules, his punishing authority is the Deputy Manager. The post of deputy Manager and Senior Divisional Manager are equivalent in Rank. It is contended that respondent No. 3 was a Senior Divisional Manager on 24th July, 2000 when the charge sheet was served upon the petitioner. The reply filed by the petitioner was considered to be unsatisfactory by respondent No. 3 and an inquiry Officer was appointed. Subsequently, the said respondent was transferred as Senior Division Manager, Amritsar and therefore, he ceased to be the competent punishing authority in case of the petitioner. But he directed the inquiry officer to send the Inquiry Report to him. On the basis of the said direction, the inquiry report was sent to him and on the basis of said report, an order of punishment has been passed against the petitioner. It is the stand of the petitioner that Respondent No. 3 was inimical towards him and therefore, he directed the Inquiry Officer to submit report to him though he ceased to be Senior Divisional Manager, Jalandhar.
(3.) THE short question which arises in the present writ petition is whether the Senior Divisional Manager or the Deputy Manager of the Divisional Office where an employee is posted would be the competent authority or any other Deputy Manager of equivalent rank posted in some other Division would also be the competent authority to take action against the petitioner. It may be noticed that though respondent No. 3 was impleaded in his personal capacity as the respondent and the allegations of mala fide has been levelled against him still respondent No. 3 has not chosen to file any reply to controvert the allegations levelled against him.;