Parkesh Tatia, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner was Development Officer in New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Allegation against the petitioner is that on 14.06.1986 he issued a cover note No. 102938 covering the risk of Jeep No. PUW 7305 against third party risk without inspecting the vehicle and without mentioning time of the collection of premium of Rs. 188/ - whereas the said jeep met with accident at 5.30 am on 14.06.1986 near Gajesar Bus Stand about 4 km. away from Churu causing injury to occupants of the vehicle and one of the occupants died as a result of injury due to the said accident. For this charge, the petitioner was punished vide order dated 19.03.1999 (Annex 6) with penalty of withholding two increments permanently as and when they become due in terms of Rule 23 -B of General Insurance (Conduct. Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975. Further he was punished in the manner that in the event of decision of Claim Case No. 116/86 at Churu goes against the Company for the act committed by the petitioner and the respondent -company is held liable for the amount of compensation, then the Company shall recover the amount of award from the petitioner. The petitioner's appeal against the said order dated 19.03.1991 was dismissed by order dated 15.02.1994 (Annex 11), which was communicated to the petitioner vide Annex 10 dated 15.03.1994. The appellate authority, while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner, took note of the fact that MACT Case has been decided against the Company and the Company is liable to pay Rs. 62,000/ - with interest @ 10% for the period from 10.11.1986 till the date of payment and thereafter held that the petitioner shall be liable to reimburse this amount to the respondent -Company. The petitioner's mercy petition was also dismissed vide order dated 23.05.1996 (Annex 6). Hence this writ petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Disciplinary Authority has violated the Principles of Natural Justice by not giving full opportunity of hearing and also did not provide the inspection of the record, which was demanded by the petitioner vide his request letter dated 22.07.1990 and in response to that the petitioner was allowed to inspect only cover note and the petitioner protested against not giving opportunity to inspect the complete record including the FIR and other documents by giving a by giving a ceritten protest vide Annex. 5 it is also submitted that without these documents the petitioner could not submit his explanation to the charge. However, the Discipanary Authority also, without considering any evidence on record and without recording the basis for satisfaction for proof of the charge merely by non -speaking order, recorded finding that after going through the record viz. charge -sheet and investigation report etc. and considering the circumstances of the case the charge stands proved. Learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the copy of the investigation report, which petitioner could obtain, has been submitted wherein the investigating officer of the respondent -Company himself, after examining the record of the registering authority of the vehicle under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, recorded clear finding that there was serious manipulation in the numbers of two vehicles and in fact two vehicles of one number were found with manipulated same number of chassis and same number of engine and already criminal case has been lodged. The investigating officer's said report clearly shows that there was no misconduct of the petitioner as petitioner is a prudent man and a good officer who could have taken reasonable care at the time of issuing cover note and he was not supposed to investigate any manipulation in the chassis number nor he possesses that qualification. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further drew my attention to the FIR lodged for the accident immediately wherein it is clearly stated that the accident was caused by the Jeep No. RJW 7305 and not only this but challan papers Ex. 21 clearly reveal that from the site, the vehicle No. RJW 7305 was seized and was sent for mechanical examination. The relevant documents of Jeep No. RJW 7305 were recovered and were produced in the court where the criminal trial proceeded. These facts are clearly mentioned in challan papers Annex 21. It is also submitted that in the Claim Case in spite of having knowledge of these facts, no reply was filed by the respondent -Company and in the claim petition itself the manipulation clearly incorporated by mentioning the Vehicle No. RJW 7305 as well as PUW 7305 without there being explanation how there could have been two numbers of the same vehicle. It is also not the case of the department or of the claimants or of the owner of the vehicle that Vehicle No. PUW 7305 was given new number RJW 73.05 and it could not have been in view of the facts referred above of manipulation in the vehicles. It is also submitted that the appellate authority and the disciplinary authority both committed error of fact and law and ignored the material evidence, which was no their own record as per their own case in view of the fact that the disciplinary authority itself referred the investigation report and without rejecting that investigation report and without recording a finding that the fact mentioned in the charge -sheet submitted by the police contains wrong facts, has passed the order. Therefore, because of misreading of the documents, the punishment has been awarded to the petitioner.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent -Company vehemently submitted that the petitioner did not submit his reply to the charge and all the pleas taken by the petitioner are nothing but after thought. It is also submitted that the disciplinary authority examined the cover note, the charge -sheet and investigation report and it is clear from the cover note that in the cover note time of issuance of cover note has not been mentioned and the accident took place at 5.30 am on 14.06.1986, therefore the vehicle could not have been inspected by the petitioner on 14.06.1986 as the vehicle was seized by the police and was sent for mechanical examination. In view of the above, the decision of the disciplinary authority was rightly recorded against the petitioner. It is also submitted that in the Claim Case, the Tribunal rejected the plea that the respondent -Company was not liable to pay the compensation because of the reason that in the FIR, the vehicle has been giving RJW 7305 and the Tribunal held the respondent - Company to reimburse the claim amount for the vehicle No. PUW 7305. In view of this finding of the Tribunal, the petitioner was rightly held guilty and this fact has been taken note of by the appellate authority.;