JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner was Development Officer in New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Allegation against the petitioner is that on 14.6.1986 he issued a cover note No. 102938 covering the risk of jeep No. PUW 7305 against third party risk without inspecting the vehicle and without mentioning time of the collection of premium of Rs. 188/- whereas the said jeep met with accident at 5.30 A.M. on 14.6.1986 near Gajesar Bus Stand about 4 km. away from Churu causing injury to occupants of the vehicles and one of the occupants died as a result of injury due to the said accident. For this charge, the petitioner was punished vide order dated 19.3.1999 (Annex. 6) with penalty of withholding two increments permanently as and when they become due in terms of Rule 23-B of General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975. Further he was punished in the manner that in the event of decision of Claim Case No. 116/1986 at Churu goes against the Company for the act committed by the petitioner and the respondent - Company is held liable for the amount of compensation, then the Company shall recover the amount of award from the petitioner. The petitioner's appeal against the said order dated 19.3.1991 was dismissed by order dated 15.2.1994 (Annex. 11), which was communicated to the petitioner vide Annex. 10, dated 15.3.1994. The appellate authority, while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner, took note of the fact that MACT Case has been decided against the Company and the Company is liable to pay Rs. 62,000/- with interest @ 10% for the period from 10.11.1986 till the date of payment and thereafter held that the petitioner shall be liable to reimburse this amount to the respondent-Company. The petitioner's mercy petition was also dismissed vide order dated 23.5.1996 (Annex.6). Hence, this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Disciplinary Authority has violated the Principles of Natural justice by not giving full opportunity of hearing and also did not provide the inspection of the record, which was demanded by the petitioner vide his request letter dated 22.7.1990 and in response to that the petitioner was allowed to inspect only cover note and the petitioner protested against not giving opportunity to inspect the complete record including the F.I.R. and other documents by giving a written protest vide Annex. 5. 5. It is also submitted that without these documents the petitioner could not submit his explanation to the charge. However, the Disciplinary Authority also without considering any evidence on record and without recording the basis for satisfaction for proof of the charge merely by non-speaking order, recorded finding that after going through the record, viz., charge-sheet and investigation report etc. and considering the circumstances of the case, the charge stands proved. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the copy of the investigation report, which petitioner could obtain, has been submitted wherein the Investigation officer of the respondent-Company himself, after examining the record of the registering authority of the vehicle under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, recorded clear finding that there was serious manipulation in the numbers of two vehicles and in fact two vehicles of one number were found with manipulated same number of chesis and same number of engine and already criminal case has been lodged. The investigating Officer's said report clearly shows that there was no misconduct of the petitioner as petitioner is a prudent man and a good officer who could have taken reasonable care at the time of issuing cover note and he was not supposed to investigate any manipulation in the chesis number nor he possesses that qualification. Learned counsel for the petitioner further drew my attention to the F.I.R. lodged for the accident immediately wherein it is clearly stated that the accident was caused by the jeep No. RJW 7305 and not only this but challan papers Ex.21 clearly reveal that from the site, the vehicle No. RJW 7305 was seized and was sent for mechanical examination. The relevant documents of Jeep No. RJW 7305 were recovered and were produced in the Court where the criminal trial proceeded. These facts are clearly mentioned in challan papers Annex.21. It is also submitted that in the claim case in spite of having knowledge of these facts, no reply was filed by the respondent-Company and in the claim petition itself, the manipulation clearly incorporated by mentioning the vehicle No. RJW 7305 as well as PUW 7305 without there being explanation how there could have been two numbers of the same vehicle. It is also not the case of the department or of the claimants or of the owner of the vehicle that vehicle No. PUW 7305 was given new number RJW 7305 and it could not have been in view of the facts referred above of manipulation in the vehicles. It is also submitted that the appellate authority and the disciplinary authority both committed error of fact and law and ignored the material evidence, which was on their own record as per their own case in view of the fact that the disciplinary authority itself referred the investigation report and without rejecting that investigation report and without recording a finding that the fact mentioned in the charge-sheet submitted by the police contains wrong facts, has passed the order. Therefore, because of misreading of the documents, the punishment has been awarded to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-Company vehemently submitted that the petitioner did not submit his reply to the charge and all the pleas taken by the petitioner are nothing but after thought. It is also submitted that the disciplinary authority examined the cover note, the charge-sheet and investigation report and it is clear from the cover note that in the cover note time of issuance of cover note has not been mentioned and the accident took place at 5.30 A.M. on 14.6.1986, therefore, the vehicle could not have been inspected by the petitioner on 14.6.1986 as the vehicle was seized by the police and was sent for mechanical examination. In view of the above, the decision of the disciplinary authority was rightly recorded against the petitioner. It is also submitted that in the claim case, the Tribunal rejected the plea that the respondent - Company was not liable to pay the compensation because of the reason that in the F.I.R., the vehicle has been giving RJW 7305 and the Tribunal held the respondent - Company to reimburse the claim amount for the vehicle No. PUW 7305. In view of this finding of the Tribunal, the petitioner was rightly held guilty and this fact has been taken note of by the appellate authority. 5. I considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The total consideration and finding of the disciplinary authority is as under : "I have carefully gone through the record viz. charge-sheet and investigation report, etc. 5. I considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The total consideration and finding of the disciplinary authority is as under : "I have carefully gone through the record viz. charge-sheet and investigation report, etc. Considering the circumstances of the case, I am of the view that more severe penalty could be justified but taking a lenient view of the whole matter, I hereby impose a penalty of withholding of two increments permanently as and when they become due in terms of Rule 23(b) of CDA Rules, 1975." 6. It is clear from the said decision of the disciplinary authority that the disciplinary authority has not recorded how there can be a finding against the petitioner if he has considered the charge-sheet and investigation report. In the charge-sheet, there is mention of the accident by the Vehicle No. RJW 7305. Further in the charge-sheet it is mentioned that the documents relating to the vehicle No. RJW 7305 were produced in the criminal case launched due to this very accident. In the investigation report, which was conducted by the person appointed by the respondent - Company itself, reveals that not only there was vehicle No. RJW 7305 but there was manipulation in the two vehicles and even in the record of registration of the vehicle under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. If the decision of the disciplinary authority is to be examined, then he examined materially two documents 'referred above and from those documents, it is clear that nothing comes out that vehicle No. PUW 7305 was the vehicle involved in the accident. Rather, from these documents, the fact came out is only that accident occurred by the vehicle No. RJW 7305. Since the evidence above referred was only relied upon by the disciplinary authority and has not rejected these evidence, therefore, the finding of fact is result of total non-application of mind and non-reading of the charge-sheet and the investigation report. In addition to above fact, that very basis for passing the order of punishment has no foundation and the order is non-speaking order. 7. In addition to above fact, that very basis for passing the order of punishment has no foundation and the order is non-speaking order. 7. In the light of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent-Company, if we look into the award passed by the learned Tribunal dated 20.2.1992, then in the cause title of the said judgment itself, two vehicle numbers have been mentioned, one PUW 7305 and in bracket RJW 7305. In spite of this fact, no issue was framed in the said claim case that which is the actual number of the vehicle which met with the accident. The respondent - Company had cover note of vehicle No. PUW 7305 and had knowledge of the F.I.R. containing a fact that the accident occurred by the vehicle No. RJW 7305, did not chose to file any reply in the claim case. Since that issue was not raised and contested, therefore, the Tribunal held the respondent - Company liable only on the ground that the respondent - Company produced the cover note of jeep No. PUW 7305 without determining the issue whether the vehicle No. RJW 7305 itself was the vehicle PUW No. 7305 and that was not a case of any of the party. For passing an award against the respondent - Company, how the petitioner could have been held guilty and that too by the disciplinary authority at the time when the award was not before the disciplinary authority and the disciplinary authority assuming that if the award is passed, the petitioner shall be liable without examining that in case the award is suffered by negligence of the other officers of the respondent - Company when the company was not liable, then how the petitioner could have been saddled with the liability to reimburse the same. Same thing happened with the appellate authority and even after the plea taken by the petitioner in the appeal that accident occurred by the vehicle No. RJW 7305, did not consider, rather say did not look into the charge-sheet and the investigation report and has not recorded any finding that if these documents alone were before the disciplinary authority, how the finding could have been recorded that the vehicle, which was covered by the petitioner by the relevant cover note itself, met with accident on the same day at 5.30 A.M. 8. In view of the above reasons, the orders passed by the authorities below cannot be sustained and liable to be set aside. 9. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 19.3.1991 (Annex. 6) and 15.2.1994 (Annex. 11) and order dated 23.5.1996 (Annex. 14) are set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits.Petition allowed. *******