H.S. Thakur vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others

Hemant Gupta, J.—The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order Annexure P-6 dated 14th January, 2004 and order in appeal Annexure P-8 dated 20.1.2005.

The petitioner was working as Development Officer in the Divisional Office of National Insurance Company at Jalandhar. The employees of the respondent company are governed by General Insurance (Conduct, Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Rules''). It is the case of the petitioner that in terms of Rule 23(d) of the Rules, his punishing authority is the Deputy Manager. The post of deputy Manager and Senior Divisional Manager are equivalent in Rank.

It is contended that respondent No. 3 was a Senior Divisional Manager on 24th July, 2000 when the charge sheet was served upon the petitioner. The reply filed by the petitioner was considered to be unsatisfactory by respondent No. 3 and an inquiry Officer was appointed. Subsequently, the said respondent was transferred as Senior Division Manager, Amritsar and therefore, he ceased to be the competent punishing authority in case of the petitioner. But he directed the inquiry officer to send the Inquiry Report to him. On the basis of the said direction, the inquiry report was sent to him and on the basis of said report, an order of punishment has been passed against the petitioner. It is the stand of the petitioner that Respondent No. 3 was inimical towards him and therefore, he directed the Inquiry Officer to submit report to him though he ceased to be Senior Divisional Manager, Jalandhar.

The short question which arises in the present writ petition is whether the Senior Divisional Manager or the Deputy Manager of the Divisional Office where an employee is posted would be the competent authority or any other Deputy Manager of equivalent rank posted in some other Division would also be the competent authority to take action against the petitioner. It may be noticed that though respondent No. 3 was impleaded in his personal capacity as the respondent and the allegations of mala fide has been levelled against him still respondent No. 3 has not chosen to file any reply to controvert the allegations levelled against him.

The punishing authority for the post of Development Officer is described in Rule 23(d). The Appointing Authority is the Manager whereas the Disciplinary Authority is the Deputy Manager. We are of the opinion that the Deputy Manager of the Division in which the employee is posted would be the competent authority to take disciplinary action against an employee. May be, the respondent No. 3 was the Senior Divisional Manager in equivalent rank and posted at Amritsar but the fact that he, was not the Senior Divisional Manager of the Jalandhar Division makes him ineligible to be Disciplinary Authority in respect of the petitioner. If the arguments of the learned Counsel for the respondent is to be accepted that would mean that a Deputy Manager posted in Mumbai or Chennai would be also the Competent Authority. The said interpretation could not be the intention of Rules as there is no logic for such interpretation. It is not the case of the respondent that there was no Senior Divisional Manager of the Jalandhar Division or that the respondent No. 3 was given the charge of the Jalandhar Division as well.

In view of the above facts, we are of the opinion that the order of punishment passed by the Senior Divisional Manager, Amritsar Division though the petitioner was posted at Jalandhar Division is not justified, particularly, keeping in view the allegations of mala fide levelled him.

Therefore, we allow the present writ petition and quash orders Annexure P-6 and P-8 and direct the competent authority to pass an appropriate order consequent to the inquiry proceedings initiated against the petitioner in accordance with law.