DILIP H SHAH Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to quash order dated March 31, 1987, passed by the General Manager of the respondent Company dismissing him from service, and also order dated August 21, 1987, passed in appeal by the Chairman-cum- Managing Director of New India Assurance Company Limited affirming the order passed by the competent authority.

(2.) The petitioner was working as an Inspector at Sayala under Surendranagar Branch of the New India Assurance Company Limited ("the company" for short) during the period from 1981 to 1984. It was reported to the competent authority that he had committed certain acts of omissions and commissions. The competent authority was of the opinion that there were grounds for inquiring into the truth of imputations of misconduct against the petitioner. Therefore, the competent authority had appointed Shri K.H. Dalai, who is an employee of the Company, as an inquiry officer by letter dated September 3, 1985 to inquire into the truth of misconducts committed by the petitioner. The charges levelled against the petitioner were as under;

(3.) One Mr. M.N. Shah was appointed as presenting officer for the purpose of inquiry against the petitioner. The petitioner was given a copy of letter dated September 3, 1985, issued by the Company, wherein charges levelled against him were mentioned, and his plea was recorded. The petitioner did not plead guilty and had presented his case through Mr. P.S. Mehta, an employee of Oriental Assurance Company. The inquiry was conducted as per the provisions of the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975 ("the Rules" for short) and the proceedings were recorded in the form of Minutes. At the inquiry, the presenting officer had examined following witnesses: (i) Mr. D.H. RavaJ, P.W. 7, (ii) Mr, J.K. Joshi, P.W.5, (iii) Mr. H.R. Raval, P.W. 2, and (iv) Mr. N.S. Baviskar, P.W. 1, to establish the charges levelled against the petitioner. The presenting officer had also produced documentary evidence in support of the case of the Company against the petitioner, which were duly exhibited by the inquiry officer. As recorded in report dated September 16, 1986 made by the inquiry officer, initially ex parte proceedings were conducted against the petitioner because the petitioner had failed to avail of the opportunity given to him to participate in the inquiry. However, the record shows that later on those witnesses, who were examined by the presenting officer to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner, were also permitted to be cross-examined by the petitioner and the petitioner was afforded opportunity to produce documents on which he was seeking reliance, but the petitioner had neither examined himself nor examined any witness to establish that the case of the Company against him was not well-founded. Rule 25(15) of the Rules provides that the Inquiring Authority may, after the employee closes his case, and shall, if the employee has not examined himself, generally question him on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the purpose of enabling the employee to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. Accordingly, the inquiring authority had generally questioned the petitioner on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the purpose of enabling him to explain the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. After completion of production of the evidence, the petitioner and the presenting officer had filed written briefs of their respective cases. On the conclusion of the inquiry, the inquiring authority prepared inquiry report dated September 16, 1986 roughly running into 23 pages, mentioning (a) a list of the articles of charge and the statement of the imputations of misconduct, (b) the manner in which the inquiry was held, (c) the manner in which the proceedings conducted were recorded, (d) as to how the documents produced were exhibited, (e) a gist of the defence of the petitioner in respect of each article of charge, (f) an assessment of the evidence in respect of each article of charge, and (g) the findings on each article of charge and the reasons therefor. The inquiring authority, on assessment of evidence, concluded that the charges levelled against the petitioner were established and forwarded his report to the competent authority for appropriate action. The said report is produced as Annexure-N to the petition. It may be stated that the petitioner had demanded statements of two witnesses examined at preliminary inquiry which was conducted by the Vigilance Officer of the Company, but those statements were not supplied by the inquiring authority. The disciplinary authority was of the view that those statements should have been supplied to the petitioner and that it was necessary to give direction to the inquiring authority to make further inquiry. Accordingly, the disciplinary authority by letter dated November 10, 1986 directed the inquiring authority to supply the statements given by the two witnesses examined at the preliminary inquiry conducted by the Vigilance Officer and remitted the case to the inquiring authority for further inquiry and report. The inquiring authority thereupon supplied copies of statements of the two witnesses recorded at preliminary inquiry conducted by the Vigilance Officer to the petitioner and further permitted the petitioner to have inspection of the documents which were demanded by him. After further inquiry was completed, the petitioner filed written brief of his case. Thereafter second inquiry report dated March 10, 1987 was prepared by the inquiring authority wherein particulars such as (i) how the proceedings were conducted, (ii) examination of the petitioner by the inquiry officer, (iii) submission of briefs by both the parties, (iv) technical objections raised by the defence, (v) examination of the defence version, and (vi) assessment of the evidence etc. were recorded. On evaluation of evidence, the inquiring authority concluded that no modification in the conclusion arrived at in the first report was necessary and that the charges levelled were proved. The said report was forwarded to the competent authority for appropriate action. After going through the proceedings, documents and the two inquiry reports including further findings submitted by the inquiring authority, the disciplinary authority was satisfied that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend himself against the charges and that no procedural lacuna was noticed. The disciplinary authority agreed with the findings recorded by the inquiring authority and held that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved.