P L CHIDAMBARAM Vs. CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner while working as Development Officer in the first respondent-New India Assurance Company at Trichy Branch, is alleged to have issued a motor vehicle's cover note No. 435457, dated 25. 9. 1990 in favour of one Mr. Rajendran indemnifying his vehicle TNJ-344 against third party risk after knowing that the vehicle had met with an accident. The petitioner had collected the premium of Rs. 1,245/- on 25. 9. 1990 and issued a cover note without inspection of the vehicle and that he altered the date of risk from 26. 9. 1990 to 25. 9. 1990 to accommodate the claim of the insured for an accident that took place on 25. 9. 1990. Therefore, the Company was saddled with a liability of Rs. 1,81,705/- which would not have arisen otherwise. A charge memo was issued by the third respondent on 22. 2. 1994 on the abovesaid imputations. The petitioner refuted all the allegations in his explanation. Third respondent thereafter served notice on 6. 5. 1994 stating that the explanation was not satisfactory and a domestic enquiry was to be instituted. Enquiry officer was appointed and enquiry was held and a report dated 5. 1. 1995 was submitted. The enquiry officer held that charges 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 are proved and charge No. 3 was not proved. Aggrieved by the findings of the enquiry officer, the petitioner made a representation dated 2. 2. 1995 to the third respondent, the competent authority. Based on enquiry report dated 5. 1. 1995 and considering the representation dated 2. 2. 1995, the competent authority while concurring with the findings of the enquiry officer, imposed the punishment of reduction of basic pay by four stages from Rs. 3,040/- to Rs. 2,560/- per month. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal to the appellate authority and the same was dismissed on 13. 2. 1996. The petitioner thereafter filed a review before the first respondent pointing out the irregularities in the order of the lower authorities. The first respondent, however, refused to interfere with the order of the lower authorities and confirmed the same by his order dated 26. 9. 1996 communicated to the petitioner on 30. 10. 1996. It is against the concurrent findings of the authorities that the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) THE charges framed against the petitioner read as follows:-

(3.) THE enquiry officer found that five out of six charges are proved. The findings of the enquiry officer will be worth mentioning here:-