Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 55 (BOM)

Hemraj v. National Insurance Company Ltd.

2015-01-08

A.R.JOSHI, ANOOP V.MOHTA

body2015
JUDGMENT Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. The matter is called out from final hearing board. Heard finally. 2. The petitioner has invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and submitted to quash and set aside the concurrent disciplinary orders passed by Assistant General Manager, Disciplinary Authority dated 20/07/2004, General Manager and Appellate Authority dated 04/01/2005, Chairman-cum-Managing Director & Competent Authority dated 25/04/2006 and chargesheet dated 03/09/2002 thereby all the authorities after considering the material placed on record and after hearing the petitioner, awarded the punishment by holding that petitioner is guilty of improper supervision as a Branch Manager and therefore, imposed minimum punishment of stoppage of three increments in the basic pay. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and considering the scope and power of Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the decisions taken by the private bodies/ authorities i.e. respondents, based upon the material available with them and as the High Court cannot act as an Appellate Forum and has limited jurisdiction to interfere with such domestic enquiry/orders so passed, specifically when there is no case of perversity and a breach of any substantive provisions which goes to the root to interfere with such concurrent findings, we are declined to accept the petitioner's prayer. The submission revolving around the retrospectivity of Rule 18 of the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2000, which according to the petitioner came into force after the cause of action in the year 1993, cannot be applicable to impose such penalty is also not acceptable as the petitioner being Manager incharge at relevant time himself, was fully aware of the such procedure which required to be followed and so also his obligation in such situation. The petitioner himself by letter dated 26/03/1993 intimated to all working under his supervision the basic procedure to be followed/observed by Development Officers with regard to the control of record and the documents. Therefore, apart from Rule 18, the respondents based upon the practice so read and as the petitioner was aware of the default of not controlling the cover notes and its consequences, therefore, in the present facts and circumstances, no case is made out to interfere with the findings so arrived at by the competent authorities and the punishment so imposed. Therefore, apart from Rule 18, the respondents based upon the practice so read and as the petitioner was aware of the default of not controlling the cover notes and its consequences, therefore, in the present facts and circumstances, no case is made out to interfere with the findings so arrived at by the competent authorities and the punishment so imposed. In the case of G.M. (Operations) S.B.I. vs. R.Periyasamy, reported in 2014 (13) SCALE, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para-8 of the judgment, as under - "8. In State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya, this Court observed as follows : "7. It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the enquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. Therefore, courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental enquiries , except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or finding, on the material on record. The courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations. (Vide B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India; (1995) 6 SCC 749 , Union of India v. G. Ganayutham; (1997) 7 SCC 463 , Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana; (1999) 5 SCC 76 and High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. ShashiKant S. Patil (2000) 1 SCC 416 )." It is not necessary to multiply authorities on this point. Suffice it to say that the law is well settled in this regard." 4. Suffice it to say that the law is well settled in this regard." 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Narinder Mohan Arya v. United India Insurance Co.Ltd. reported in AIR 2006, 1748 referring to the power and jurisdiction of appellate authority under the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act. The facts of the case are distinct and distinguishable. As recorded above, the concurrent findings so given on merits cannot be stated to be without application of mind. Some charges were not proved that doesn't mean that charge which is proved, cannot be the reason to pass order of penalty so imposed in the present case. This judgment itself held that appellate authority's order may not be of speaking one if it agrees with findings of disciplinary authority after going even through the orders so passed, we have noted that the concerned authority applied its mind to the fact and instead of imposing major punishment, restricted the minor penalty as recorded above. 5. Therefore, taking overall view of the matter, we see no case is made out to interfere with the orders so passed. 6. The petition is accordingly dismissed. 7. Rule stands discharged. No costs.