(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue an appropriate Writ, order or directions mostly one which is in the nature of a Writ of mandamus declaring the office order Ref No. 150000NRO/MKTG/ 125/2010, dated 31-3-2011 of the 2nd Respondent and the subsequent confirmation order in HO/HRO/2038/2011, dated 13-7-2011 of the 4th Respondent and office order HO/MKTG/505/2011-12, dated 2-3-2012 of the 1' Respondent as illegal, irregular, unreasonable, unjustified, and unsustainable and set aside the said orders and pass such other order or orders as it may deems fit and necessary under the circumstances of the case.

IA NO: 1 OF 2012(WPMP 26666 OF 2012

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to expedite the hearing of the Writ Petition by fixing an early date for hearing and pass such other order or orders as it may deems fit and necessary under the circumstances of the case.

IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 38304 OF 2014

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased expedite the hearing of the Writ Petition No. 20809/2012 by fixing an early date

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to grant leave to the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to file the Counter Affidavit in the above Writ Petition and pass)

1. The petitioner is challenging the impugned proceedings dated 31.03.2011 issued by the 2nd respondent and the subsequent order of confirmation dated 13.07.2011 of the 4th respondent and the office order dated 02.03.2012 issued by the 1st respondent.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Grade – I Inspector in the 1st respondent- company on 11.02.1986. The petitioner served the respondent-company under various capacities and also secured good business to the 1st respondent-company as a Development Officer.

3. It is submitted that the Vigilance Officer of the 1st respondent-company vide a letter dated 03.03.2009 had called upon the petitioner to clarify as to how premium for three tractors and trailers was collected on 05.09.2005 by using a cattle receipt instead of issuing a motor cover note. A further explanation as to why only two cover notes were issued instead of three cover notes. The petitioner was issued memorandum of charges dated 25.05.2009 to which the petitioner replied.

4. An enquiry was conducted on the charges leveled against the petitioner and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 18.11.2010. The disciplinary authority issued proceedings dated 31.03.2011 imposing the penalty of removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment. The appeal submitted by the petitioner was rejected vide proceedings dated 13.07.2011. The review submitted by the petitioner before the chairman cum Managing director also upheld the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charges leveled against the petitioner were found proved without conducting any enquiry. It is also submitted that no opportunity was granted to the petitioner to participate in the enquiry proceedings. It is submitted that the respondents without conducting any enquiry could not have imposed the major punishment of removal from service.

6. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submits that a fair and transparent enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was found guilty of misconduct and on account of the omissions and commissions of the petitioner, the respondent corporation incurred loss and accordingly the Enquiry Officer found it a fit case to order for recovery of the amounts.

7. It is also submitted that the petitioner has not raised the ground of not granting an opportunity to participate in the enquiry proceedings before the appellate authority. It is submitted that such a ground is raised for the first time during the course of argument. It is also submitted that the petitioner has purposefully evaded in filing the enquiry report along with the material paper. It is submitted that the respondent has submitted additional material paper by furnishing a copy of the enquiry report and also the memorandum of charges.

8. It is submitted that the tampering of cover notes and issuance of fabricated vouchers were all placed before the Enquiry Officer and as many as 105 documents were placed before the Enquiry Officer for due consideration.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent. Perused the material on record.

10. The short point for consideration is whether this Court can interfere with the impugned proceedings and grant the relief as prayed for or any other relief for which the petitioner is entitled to.

11. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was issued a charge memo dated 28.11.2010 alleging the involvement of the petitioner in tampering with the cover notes, collecting cash and also tampered the records relating to receipt of premium amount and misappropriated an amount of Rs.3,01,087/-, charges relating to misappropriation of premium amounts and tampering of records. On the basis of the said charges an enquiry was initiated. The Enquiry Officer has recorded the statements of the witnesses on behalf of the management and also took into consideration the documents as submitted.

12. The petitioner was also granted ample and fair opportunity for participating in the proceedings. The findings of the enquiry officer based on the detailed enquiry and evidences adduced and documents marked for arriving at the decision to impose the punishment to the petitioner for the misconduct committed cannot be interfered in a routine and casual manner.

13. The petitioner would have to demonstrate as to how the impugned proceedings can be branded as perverse and justify the punishment as shockingly disproportionate. The respondents have conducted an enquiry in accordance with the General Insurance (Conduct, discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975. Rule 23 to 27 deal with the penalties and disciplinary authority and procedure for imposing major penalties. On the facts of this case, the petitioner has not demonstrated as to which Rule was violated by the respondents for issuing the impugned proceedings which are under challenge.

14. The scope of this Court to go into the aspect of the quality of evidence is concerned, it is a settled preposition of the Administrative law that the constitutional Courts cannot re-appreciate the evidence and assume the role of the appellate authority over the disciplinary authority.

15. The constitutional Courts can certainly set aside the punishments awarded by the disciplinary authorities subject to satisfaction that the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate to the charges framed. Such interference would be necessary in cases where there is absolutely no evidence.

16. On the facts of the present case, the disciplinary authority has considered the available material on record and held the petitioner guilty of misconduct and it was held that the charges leveled against the petitioner were proved.

17. On these considerations, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not made out any valid grounds for interfering with the impugned proceedings. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

18. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed.