JUDGMENT : Mohinder Pal, J. By way of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks directions against the respondents for setting aside the order dated 21.1.2003, whereby, major penalty of dismissal from service with immediate effect has been imposed upon the petitioner by respondent no. 1. He has also challenged the rejection of appeal dated 14.4.2003 and Memorial (Review) dated 9.8.2003 while seeking restoration of his service. 2. Brief facts leading to filing of this petition are that the petitioner joined the National Insurance Company (respondent insurance company) - a subsidiary of General Insurance Corporation of India as an Assistant in June, 1979. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer (AAO) in the year 1985, and later on, promoted in the cadre of Branch Manager/Administrative Officer in the year 1988. During the very long span of dedicated and diligent service of over 22 years till 2001 prior to his suspension in October, 2001, and subsequent dismissal from services with immediate effect in January, 2003, he had efficiently and single-handedly contributed to many high-skilled jobs assigned to him from time to time by the authorities. 3. Prior to dismissal effected in January, 2003, the petitioner was initially recklessly suspended from the services of respondent-insurance company vide Office Order dated 9.10.2001 by terming the petitioner's presence before the Insurance Ombudsman (Gujarat) on 8.10.2001 on behalf of his maternal uncle - an insured, as prejudicial act to the interest of the respondent insurance company in terms of General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeals) Rules, 1975. The said order of suspension was served upon the petitioner by respondent no. 2 vide its letter dated 12.10.2001. It is the case of the petitioner that the said suspension order clearly stated that the petitioner appeared before the Insurance Ombudsman and acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the company in violation of 4(5), (20), 6 and 7 of CDR Rules, 1975, and therefore, the petitioner was thereby suspended. It is the case of the petitioner that he has never made any statement in favour of his maternal uncle and against respondent no. 1 before the Insurance Ombudsman on the relevant date. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that he has never made any statement in favour of his maternal uncle and against respondent no. 1 before the Insurance Ombudsman on the relevant date. 4. The petitioner has submitted that such an unfortunate event that has travelled in an unscrupulous and unusual way and in malafide manner had led him to approach this High Court in November, 2001 by way of filing of the writ petition bearing SCA No. 10826/2001 challenging the selective and malafide suspension wherein this High Court has issued notices against respondents no. 1 and 2. Later on, as per letter dated 18.12.2001, Memorandum for holding the inquiry and Articles of charge framed (charge sheet) against the petitioner were issued to the petitioner. As many as 9 charges were framed against the petitioner and an inquiry came to be conducted, and out of 9 charges, three charges i.e. charge no. 1,7 and 9 were proved, two charges i.e. charges no. 2 and 3 were partly proved and four charges i.e. charges no. 4,5,6 & 8 were not proved, to which, the petitioner sent detailed representation vide his letter dated 25.11.2002. Instead of responding to the petitioner by dealing with his representation suitably, he has been dismissed from service with immediate effect as per impugned order dated 21.1.2003. The appeal, review and some of the representations made by the petitioner also came to be dismissed and the petitioner was dismissed from service. The petitioner has sought for setting aside the dismissal by way of this petition. 5. The respondents have contested this petition by filing reply, wherein, it has been stated that the petitioner has argued the case at length before the authority concerned against the respondent- Insurance Company. It is further their case that the petitioner has appeared against the company without obtaining permission from the management of the company which has resulted into a case of clear cut misconduct as per Rule 4(5), (6) of General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal), Rules, 1975 and also violation of Rule 9(1) of the Rules, 1975. It is further replied that the misconduct of appearing before the Ombudsman is not the only charge against the petitioner but there are also other number of charges and the petitioner cannot run away from it. It is further replied that the misconduct of appearing before the Ombudsman is not the only charge against the petitioner but there are also other number of charges and the petitioner cannot run away from it. The relation between employer and employee was fiduciary in nature, as public sector Insurance Companies are custodian of public money, any employee who works against the interest of the company cannot be allowed to be continued in service in the Company. Even otherwise, Shri Dipesh M. Sheth has already availed the retirement benefits and therefore, the relations of employer- employee between the respondent company and the petitioner herein have come to an end long back. The concurrent view on penalty has been taken by the competent authority, appellate authority and C.M.D. Of the company by exercising the powers under Rule 40 of G.I.(C.D.A.) Rules, and thus, does not call for any interference by this Court. With this prayer, they have prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. While arguing before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has orally argued the matter and has also submitted written submissions. It is submitted that Respondent No.1 being the Disciplinary Authority, had its own upgraded the "partially proved" Charges No.2 and 3 and converted them into "proved beyond doubt" and inflicted major punishment of dismissal from the service on the petitioner. The impugned order-dated 21.01.2003 has been passed without affording him any opportunity of hearing either for converting or upgrading "partially proved" charges No.2 and 3 to "proved beyond doubt" and awarded harsh, outrageous and excessive punishment of dismissal from service. 7. In this context, he has further submitted that the glaring fact of converting and upgrading "partially proved" charges No.2 and 3 as "proved beyond doubt" is very much evident from the record of Respondent No.1 himself, more particularly, if page No.102 of Inquiry Report and page No.112 of the impugned order of dismissal dated 21.01.2003 are read together. 8. 7. In this context, he has further submitted that the glaring fact of converting and upgrading "partially proved" charges No.2 and 3 as "proved beyond doubt" is very much evident from the record of Respondent No.1 himself, more particularly, if page No.102 of Inquiry Report and page No.112 of the impugned order of dismissal dated 21.01.2003 are read together. 8. It is further submitted that in this matter, Rule was issued by this Court on 27.02.2004 and served to all the respondent-authorities of Insurance Company and reply-affidavit dated 25.01.2005 had been filed, but there is material omission on the part of Respondents No.1 to 4 for not providing any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and thereby, there is violation of principles of natural justice before converting and upgrading "partially proved" charges No.2 and 3 to "proved beyond doubt". He has referred to and relied on a reported decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Yoginath D. Bagde V. State of Maharashtra and anr., (1999) 7 SCC 739 , and has submitted that "Right to be heard" would be available to the delinquent till final stage. The Principles of natural justice is a Constitutional right which cannot be taken away by any legislative enactment or service rule. In this context, further reference has been made to another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manohar s/o Manikrao Anchule v. State of Maharashtra and anr., (2012) 13 SCC 14 . 9. It is submitted that apart from violation of principles of natural justice at the hands of respondents No.1 to 4-Insurance Co. authorities, extremely harsh, grossly unjust punishment of dismissal imposed by Respondent No.1 in defiance of logic and disproportionate to the nature of charges leveled and gravity of misconduct, it had made the petitioner further pitiable. Such action/decision against the Petitioner, is therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution as settled in the case of Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India and ors., (1987) 4 SCC 611 . Relevant paragraph is reproduced as under: "26. In Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh this Court held: SCC p. 453 [(L & S)p. 353, para-15]. It is equally true that the penalty imposed must be commensurate with the gravity of misconduct, and that any penalty disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh this Court held: SCC p. 453 [(L & S)p. 353, para-15]. It is equally true that the penalty imposed must be commensurate with the gravity of misconduct, and that any penalty disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The point to note, and emphaise is that all powers have legal limits." 10. It is further submitted that it was one of the charge on the petitioner that he was engaged in speculation of shares and stock. He has done speculative transactions approximately worth of Rs. 23.00 lacs without prior sanction of competent authority. 11. This fact was clarified by the petitioner in his written statement to Memorandum & Articles of charges and stated that it was not Rs. 23.00 lacs, but it was Rs. 23,000/- only, and share transaction done was in relation to the share which he inherited from his deceased father in the year of 1997. 12. It is submitted that there was no any charge or allegation, such as corruption, misappropriation, assault, physical injury, loss or damage to the property etc. so far made against the petitioner in his entire blot-less career of over 22 years, and has prayed to set aside the order of dismissal passed against the petitioner. 13. The learned counsel for the respondents has also orally argued the matter and has also submitted written submissions. It is submitted that the petitioner was given ample opportunity of hearing before the Inquiry Officer as well as the Appellate Authority, where, he could disprove the charges levelled against him. However, he could not do the same and even the documentary evidence speak volumes about the misconduct and indiscipline of the petitioner in service, and therefore, the Management was constrained to dismiss the petitioner from service and therefore, the contention of the petitioner that his right to opt for voluntary retirement scheme is taken away, is not true and correct. 14. Learned counsel for the respondents has further relied upon the order dated 28.07.2003 passed by the General Manager and Appellate Authority. Learned counsel for the respondents further relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh & others v/s Mohd Nasrullakhan, (2006) 2 SCC 373 . 14. Learned counsel for the respondents has further relied upon the order dated 28.07.2003 passed by the General Manager and Appellate Authority. Learned counsel for the respondents further relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh & others v/s Mohd Nasrullakhan, (2006) 2 SCC 373 . He has also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation & others v/s N.R. Vairamani, (2004) AIR SC 4778. It is, therefore, prayed by the respondents that the petition be dismissed. 15. This Court has considered the oral as well as written submissions made by both the sides. 16. It could be seen that the respondent no. 1 had framed nine different charges against the petitioner, which can be reproduced as under: (1) The Petitioner undertook part time work for Mr. Arvind Shah to appear on his behalf against the company before Ombudsman in a Mediclaim case without prior sanction of the competent authority. (2) The petitioner undertook personal work during official time and used office equipment, stationery etc. for such personal work. (3) The petitioner undertook part time work on behalf of private bodies and persons such as - insured, surveyors, investigators etc. by entering into correspondence on their behalf against the company and other subsidiaries. (4) The petitioner authored a letter purportedly written by Mr. Arvind Shah to Mr. R.N. Sahu, Division Manager of Divisional Office-IV, National Insurance Co. Ltd., leveling derogatory, unfounded allegations against Mr. N.R. Shah, Assistant Manager of the same office. (5) The petitioner defamed Mr. N.R. Shah, Assistant Manager of the Company in a letter addressed to Mr. P. Ashok Kumar, Secretary of the Office of Ombudsman, Ahmedabad on 20.08.2001 purportedly written by Mr. Arvind Shah, but in fact authored by Mr. D.M. Sheth. (6) The petitioner wrote anonymous letter containing derogatory language against the officer of the industry. (7) The petitioner engaged in speculation in shares and stocks. (8) The petitioner's speculation in shares and stocks involves amounts which are disproportionate to his known source of income. (9) The petitioner did not submit property return as per CDA Rules. 17. Out of aforementioned nine charges, three charges i.e. charge no. 1, 7 and 9 were proved. Charges no. 2 and 3 were partly proved and remaining charges were not proved. (9) The petitioner did not submit property return as per CDA Rules. 17. Out of aforementioned nine charges, three charges i.e. charge no. 1, 7 and 9 were proved. Charges no. 2 and 3 were partly proved and remaining charges were not proved. The petitioner made a detailed representation against the findings. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the authorities themselves have enhanced the partly proved charges no. 2 and 3 to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The representation has been considered in mechanical manner. Petitioner was required to be given an opportunity of being heard before converting the findings of charges no. 2 and 3 as partly proved to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The punishing authority on its own cannot up-grade the charges which has amounted to violation of principles of natural justice and law laid down by the Courts. 18. While arguing on this point, learned counsel has also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manohar s/o Manikrao Anchule vs. State of Maharashtra and another, (2012) 13 SCC 14 . In the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the judgment passed in the case of A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC 262 , has been referred, which reads as under: 18. In A.K. Kaipak v. Union of India, the Court held as under: (SCC pp. 271-73, para 17 & 20): "17....It is not necessary to examine those decisions as there is a great deal of fresh thinking on the subject. The horizon of natural justice is constantly expending.... **** **** **** **** 20. The aim of the rules of natural justice is to secure justice or to put it negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice. These rules can operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made. In other words, they do not supplant the law of the land but supplement it. The concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent years. In the past it was thought that it included just two rules namely; (1) no one shall be a Judge in his own case (nemo debet esse judex propria cause), and (2) no decision shall be given against a party without affording him a reasonable hearing (audi alteram partem). In the past it was thought that it included just two rules namely; (1) no one shall be a Judge in his own case (nemo debet esse judex propria cause), and (2) no decision shall be given against a party without affording him a reasonable hearing (audi alteram partem). Very soon thereafter a third rules was envisaged and that is that quasi-judicial enquiries must be held in good faith without bias and not arbitrarily or unreasonably...." 19. It could be seen that before imposing penalty the petitioner was required to be given reasonable opportunity of being heard especially under the circumstances when the Inquiry Officer has concluded that charges no. 2 and 3 are partly proved and the punishing authorities have treated these charges to be fully proved. Power to recommend disciplinary action is a power exercised of which may impose penal consequences. When such a re-recommendation is received, the disciplinary authorities would conduct disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law and subject to satisfaction of the requirement of law. Thus, it could be seen that the compliance of the aforementioned provisions of providing of an opportunity to the petitioner was a prerequisite in line with the principles of natural justice and fair play which seems to have been denied in the present case. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised arguments on other points as well. It has been argued that the petitioner inherited Rs. 23,000/- from his father and wife after their death and has invested this money in share. The respondents have treated this Rs. 23,000/- as Rs. 23,00,000/- and have disproportionately punished the petitioner in this regard. Apart from arguments on this point, he has also referred to other charges which are stated to have been proved against the petitioner. 21. It could be seen that the entire controversy has started with the petitioner appearing on behalf of his uncle in the proceedings before the Ombudsman against the respondent Insurance Company. Consequently, he has been served with the charge-sheet. The charges are stated to have been proved, and accordingly, he has been imposed with penalty of dismissal from service. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner has indulged in such an activities which has resulted into corruption or financial loss to the respondent - Insurance Company. Perhaps the dispute was only regarding Rs. The charges are stated to have been proved, and accordingly, he has been imposed with penalty of dismissal from service. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner has indulged in such an activities which has resulted into corruption or financial loss to the respondent - Insurance Company. Perhaps the dispute was only regarding Rs. 10,000/- which was against the claim of medical reimbursement by the uncle of the petitioner. Otherwise also, there is nothing on record to show that on any previous occasions, the petitioner has been awarded any other punishment during his long service tenure of so many years. The Inquiry Officer has found charges no. 2 and 3 to be partly proved, however, the concerned authorities have themselves treated the charges to be fully proved. So, from the technical angle as well, the punishment imposed by the respondents could not withstand the scrutiny and the law laid down by various Courts. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ved Prakash Gupta vs. M/s. Delton Cable India (P) Ltd., (1984) AIR SC 914, has held as under: "We are therefore of the opinion that the punishment awarded to the appellant is shockingly disproportionate regard being had to the charge framed against him. We are also of the opinion that no responsible employer would ever impose in like circumstances the punishment of dismissal to the employee and that victimization or unfair labour practice could well be inferred from the conduct of the management in awarding the extreme punishment of dismissal for a flimsy charge of abuse of some worker or officer of the management by the appellant within the premises of the factory. We, therefore, hold that the termination of the appellant's service is invalid and unsustainable in law, and that he is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and other benefits including continuity of service. The appeal is allowed accordingly with costs quantified at Rupees 1,000/-." 22. Coming to the present case, the dismissal from service in view of the aforementioned circumstances does not appeal to the conscious of this Court especially under the circumstances when the petitioner has appeared before the Ombudsman, a quasi judicial authority in connection with the medical reimbursement of uncle of the petitioner who could not attend the proceedings on that relevant date. Otherwise also, the representation made by the petitioner seems to have not been effectively considered by the respondents. Keeping in view the guilt of the petitioner, the manner in which punishing authority has considered the representation made by the petitioner, past record of the petitioner and the punishment imposed upon the petitioner, the order of dismissal could not withstand the guidelines laid down in various judgments passed by the Courts. Otherwise also, the petitioner was due to retire in the year 2017, however, he was put under suspension in the year 2001 and subsequently, dismissed from service. The petitioner seems to have suffered enough punishment from the date of suspension till the date of decision of this Court. 23. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned order of dismissal dated 21.1.2001 passed against the petitioner is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is treated to be in service till the date of his superannuation. Since the petitioner might not have remained idle from the date of suspension till superannuation, he will not be entitled to any salary for the aforementioned period. However, he will be treated to be in service till the date of superannuation. He will be entitled to all the retiral benefits and pension etc. The arrears will be calculated and paid to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Rule made absolute.