DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., GUNTUR AND OTHERS Vs. THOTAPALLI RADHAKRISHNA MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is preferred against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court, allowing the writ petition. The writ petition was filed by the respondent herein, challenging the validity of the order terminating his services. This appeal is preferred by the management, i.e., the United India Insurance Company, Ltd.

(2.) The respondent was employed as an Inspector, Grade-II, by the appellant-Company. On 13-2-1979, charges were served upon him alleging that, on 4-11-1978, he submitted a false hospitalisation claim, claiming a sum of Rs. 925.00 towards medicine, drugs and treatment charges incurred for the treatment of his wife, for a period of one month, in a private pursing Home. It was alleged that the said bill is not true; that, his wife had never undergone any treatment at the said clinic and that the claim was put forward by the respondent with a view to defraud the Company. In his explanation, the respondent denied the charge, whereupon an Enquiry Officer was appointed. The record of the Enquiry Officer, which is placed before us, discloses the following facts:-

(3.) At the opening of the enquiry, the respondent herein was served with copies of the relevant statements and documents, and was also allowed to inspect the documents in possession of the Presenting-Officer. When he was asked to indicate whether he wishes to avail of the services of a co-employee, he declined to do so stating that he would defend himself. He also stated that he has no witnesses to examine on his behalf. Thereupon, four witnesses were examined for the management, who were allowed to be cross-examined by the respondent. The respondent cross-examined M. W. 1, M. W. 2, and M. W. 3, but declined to cross-examine M. W. 4. After the presenting-Officer closed his evidence, the Enquiry Officer "informed (the respondent) to give his evidence in the enquiry". Accordingly, the respondent gave his statement denying the allegations against him. He was, thereupon, cross-examined by the presenting-officer. After that the Officer called upon both the parties to file written briefs before the date prescribed by him and; thereafter, submitted his report. In this report, he held the charge levelled against the respondent proved beyond reasonable doubt. After receiving this Enquiry Report, the disciplinary authority removed the respondent from service, by its order dated 22-1-1980. An appeal preferred by the respondent was also dismissed by the General Manager, under his order dated 7-5-1980. Both the orders were challenged in the writ petition.