S VISWESWARIAH Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. Visweswaraiah has filed this appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 19th January 1983 by which Writ Petition No. 10062/76 filed by him has been dismissed.

(2.) The Vanguard Insurance Company Limited with its registered office at Madras was engaged in the business of doing general insurance. The Company has a branch office at Bangalore and the appellant was working as its Manager. On 13th May 1971, the President of India in exercise of the powers conferred by Art. 123(1) of the Constitution, promulgated the General Insurance (Emergency Provisions) Ordinance, 1971, (No. 6 of 1971), (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance'), pending complete nationalisation of general insurance in the country, inter-alia providing for transfer of the management of the undertakings of general insurance to the Central Government. Consequently from 13th May 1971 the business of the Vanguard Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') stood vested in the Central Government. The Ordinance was replaced and re-enacted by the Parliament as the General Insurance (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1971, (Central Act 17 of 1971), (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Act has been given retrospective effect from 13th May 1971, the day on which the Ordinance was promulgated. The process of natinalisation of the General Insurance was completed by enacting the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972, (Central Act 57 of 1972), (hereinafter referred to as '1972 Act'), by which Act and the scheme framed thereunder by the Central Government, the Company was merged in the New India Assurance Company Limited. When the Company was functioning in the private sector, disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the Secretary against the appellant by issuing a show cause notice dated 25th February 1971. This show cause notice did not culminate into any final order and in the meantime the Company's business stood vested in the Central Government. It appears that after vesting of the Company's business, the Custodian of the Company, by his order dated 28th August 1972 (Exhibit-A), placed the appellant under suspension and initiated disciplinary proceedings against him into the alleged misconduct referred to therein in the course of his duties as Branch Manager. By a separate order, the Custodian appointed one Sri. G. Venkataraman, an Advocate of the Madras Bar, to inquire into the alleged misconduct. Thereafter on 29th November 1972 and 1st December 1972 the Custodian served two more charge-memos against the appellant and the Inquiry Officer was requested to inquire into those charges also. The substance of the charges levelled against the appellant is that he had misappropriated various amounts and that he had misbehaved and assaulted an officer of the Company called Mohan Krishnan Naidu who was directed to hold a preliminary enquiry. After a series of adjournments, the Enquiry Officer posted the enquiry to 17th August 1973 at Bangalore at 10.30 A.M. But at the appointed time the appellant and his counsel were absent and therefore the Enquiry Officer proceeded with the enquiry, completed the same and submitted his report on 27th September 1973 to the Company recording a finding that the appellant was guilty of the charges levelled against him. On consideration of the said report of the Enquiry Officer, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the New India Assurance Col., Ltd., Bombay, vide order dated 8th October 1975 (Exihibit-Z), concurring with the report of the Enquiry Officer, passed an order of dismissal against the appellant from service with effect from 28th August 1972 with a direction that he should make good a sum of Rs. 23,831-95 that was found due from him. Feeling aggrieved from the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal which was rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 21st April 1976 (Exhibit Z4). Still dissatisfied, the appellant filed Write Petition No. 10062/76 calling in question the legality and propriety of the order of dismissal and the order passed by the Appellate Authority.

(3.) The writ petition was contested on behalf of the respondents and the averments made in the petition were stoutly controverted. Before the learned single Judge, the following points were urged :-