RAKESH MIDHA Vs. ORIENTAL FIRE INSURANCE CO. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was working as Development Officer in the office of the respondent (Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.), was issued a charge-sheet, dated 31st March, 1998, proposing to initiate disciplinary action, against him, under Rule 25 of the General Insurance CDA Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as "the CDA Rules"). The charge-sheet contained, essentially, two charges, against the petitioner, dovetailed into a single Article of Charge.

(2.) The first allegation, against the petitioner, was that he had created a dummy agent, of the respondent, by name Yugal Gupta, with a fictitious bank account, in which agency commission, allegedly payable to Yugal Gupta, was deposited, and subsequently withdrawn by the petitioner, during the period 1991 to 1996. The allegedly fictitious agent Yugal Gupta had been assigned Agency Code 1623. The Savings Bank account of Yugal Gupta, in the Punjab National Bank (PNB) was also found to have been introduced by the petitioner. It was alleged that, on enquiries being made at B-1/30, Model Town, which was the address of Yugal Gupta, as entered in his Agency Renewal Application, it was found that, though one Yugal Gupta was, indeed, residing at the said address, he had nothing to do with the Agency, assigned to the fictitious Yugal Gupta (with Agency Code 1623), or with the aforesaid Savings Bank account in the PNB. The petitioner, on being questioned in this regard, produced, before S. C. S. Bisht, Assistant Manager (Vigilance Cell) of the respondent, one person, who was stated to be the agent of Yugal Gupta. The said person produced a Driving Licence, of Yugal Gupta, r/o B-56, Railway Road, Karnal, and stated that he had been residing at B-1/30, Model Town till March, 1996, whereafter he shifted to Karnal. This fact was, however, refuted by the 'other' Yugal Gupta who was found staying at B-1/30, Model Town. It was alleged, further, that S. K. Samantaray, Branch Manager of the respondent, stated, on 27th November, 1996 and 9th December, 1996, that the Agency Commission, deposited in the aforesaid Savings Bank account of Yugal Gupta, in the PNB, was withdrawn, by the petitioner, using pre-signed cheques, consequent on certification of the identity of the agent by the petitioner, himself, by attesting the signature of the agent. On the basis of these facts, it was alleged that the petitioner had stagemanaged a fictitious Yugal Gupta, to camouflage his misdemeanour of creating a dummy agency, with a dummy bank account, in order to wrongfully earn Agency Commission. By this method, it was alleged that the petitioner had wrongfully earned agency commission of 3,57,852.70, during the period November, 1991 to June, 1996. A tabular statement, of the amounts earned on a year-wise basis, also finds place in the Statement of Imputations of Misconduct, forming part of the charge-sheet.

(3.) The second charge, against the petitioner, was that the paid-up capital of one M/s Tej International, which was also introduced by the petitioner, using the agency of Yugal Gupta, was certified, vide certificate dated 30th November, 1995, purportedly on the letterhead of Tej International, as 6,50,000/ , whereas Tej International, on verification, submitted that its paid-up capital, on 31st March, 1996, was 22,00,000/-.