AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.—The petitioner has called into question the memorandums, dated 6.8.2009 (Annexure-A) and dated 18.2.2013 (Annexure-H) proposing to hold the enquiry against the petitioner into two charges. The first charge is that there is delay of 6 to 111 days in crediting the amounts collected by the petitioner by way of premium from the clients to the account of the first respondent. The second charge is that he has misappropriated the cash of Rs. 19,050/- by inflating the postage expenses. The petitioner is also seeking a direction restraining the respondent No. 1 from holding the enquiry pursuant to the memorandum at Annexure-H.
Sri S.B. Halli, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975 (''CDA Rules'' for short) are not gazetted. It is his submission that until such time that they are gazetted, they do not become operational. Without prejudice to this submission, he would contend that the respondents United India Insurance Company limited is delinked from the General Insurance Company. On such delinking, the Management of United India Insurance Company Limited has to frame the Service and Disciplinary Rules and Regulations which has however not been done.
He submits that the petitioner has sought the copies of the documents vide his representation, dated 17.8.2009 (Annexure-B), but the said documents have not been supplied to the petitioner. As the sought documents are not being supplied, the petitioner is not in a position to defend himself effectively in the proposed enquiry. In support of his submissions, he relies on the Apex Court''s judgment in the case of Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank and Others Vs. Madanlal Tandon . He complains of the violation of the principles of natural justice.
Sri Anoop, the learned counsel appearing for Sri B.C. Seetharama Rao for the respondent No. 1 submits that the petitioner has taken over 100 days in remitting the amount collected by way of premium from the respondents'' clients. After about 100 days, he would issue either his personal cheque or his wife''s cheque towards the amounts. He submits that the petitioner without incurring the postal expenses has been claiming the reimbursement of the postal expenses baselessly.
He submits that the CDA Rules are adopted by the Board of United India Insurance Company Limited.
The submissions of the learned counsel have received my thoughtful consideration. The issuance of the memorandums proposing to hold the enquiry are challenged in this petition. Such petitions are not entertainable, as no firm cause of action has accrued to the delinquent employee. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India (UOI) and Another Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, has expressed the considered view that the writ against a charge sheet or show cause notice is premature. The Head Note under ''A'' reads as follows:
"Ordinarily no writ lies against a charge-sheet or show cause notice. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of any one. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance..........."
It is also profitable to refer to the Apex Court''s judgment in the case of The Secretary, Min. of Defence and Others Vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, . Paragraph Nos. 10 and 12 of the said judgment are extracted hereinbelow:
"10. Ordinarily a writ application does not lie against a charge-sheet or show-cause notice for the reason that it does not give rise to any cause of action. It does not amount to an adverse order which affects the right of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction/competence to do so. A writ lies when some right of a party is infringed. In fact, charge-sheet does not infringe the right of a party. It is only when a final order imposing the punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, it may have a grievance and cause of action. Thus, a charge-sheet or show-cause notice in disciplinary proceedings should not ordinarily be quashed by the Court.
Thus, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that the charge-sheet cannot generally be a subject-matter of challenge as it does not adversely affect the rights of the delinquent unless it is established that the same has been issued by an authority not competent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings. Neither the disciplinary proceedings nor the charge-sheet be quashed at an initial stage as it would be a premature stage to deal with the issues. Proceedings are not liable to be quashed on the grounds that proceedings had been initiated at a belated stage or could not be concluded in a reasonable period unless the delay creates prejudice to the delinquent employee. Gravity of alleged misconduct is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration while quashing the proceedings."
The Enquiry Officer may hold that the petitioner is not guilty of the charges, if the Management fails to establish the charge and if the petitioner establishes his innocence. Further, even if the Enquiry Officer holds that he is guilty of the charges, the Disciplinary Authority may not act on the same. No firm cause of action has arisen to the petitioner at this stage. On the ground that the CDA Rules are not gazetted and that United India Insurance Company has not adopted the CDA Rules of General Insurance, the same cannot be interfered with. It is trite that the employer has the inherent right to hold an enquiry into the alleged misconducts of his employees. It is so even in the absence of any Rules. But all that is required to be done is to hold the enquiry observing the principles of natural justice.
The Apex Court in the case of Vineet Narain and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, has this to say in paragraph No. 55 of its decision:
"55. These principles of public life are of general application in every democracy and one is expected to bear them in mind while scrutinising the conduct of every holder of a public office. It is trite that the holders of public offices are entrusted with certain powers to be exercised in public interest alone and, therefore, the office is held by them in trust for the people. Any deviation from the path of rectitude by any of them amounts to a breach of trust and must be severely dealt with instead of being pushed under the carpet. If the conduct amounts to an offence, it must be promptly investigated and the offender against whom a prima facie case is made out should be prosecuted expeditiously so that the majesty of law is upheld and the rule of law vindicated. It is the duty of the judiciary to enforce the rule of law and, therefore, to guard against erosion of the rule of law.
It is also helpful to refer to the Apex Court''s judgment in the case of Dr. Subramanian Swamy Vs. Dr. Manmohan Singh and Another, . The Apex Court has this to say in paragraph No. 68 of its decision:
"68. Today, corruption in our country not only poses a grave danger to the concept of constitutional governance, it also threatens the very foundation of Indian democracy and the Rule of Law. The magnitude of corruption in our public life is incompatible with the concept of a socialist secular democratic republic. It cannot be disputed that where corruption begins all rights end. Corruption devalues human rights, chokes development and undermines justice, liberty, equality, fraternity which are the core values in our Preambular vision. Therefore, the duty of the court is that any anti-corruption law has to be interpreted and worked out in such a fashion as to strengthen the fight against corruption. That is to say in a situation where two constructions are eminently reasonable, the Court has to accept the one that seeks to eradicate corruption to the one which seeks to perpetuate it."
I have also gone through the petitioner''s representation for the issuance of the documents. He has sought the following:
General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeals) Rules, 1975.
Details of article I.
Details of article II
Details of annexure III (Statement 1-6) and other documents.
Annexure IV the statement of witnesses 1 and 2.
There is no question of the Management giving the details of article I, article II and annexure III. If the petitioner wants any specific document, it is always open to him to seek the same, but the documents sought should be specific and should be relevant for the enquiry proposed to be held. Reserving the liberty to the petitioner to seek the specific and relevant documents from the respondents and to take such defences before the Enquiry Officer, as are permissible in law and to challenge the Disciplinary Authority''s order in appropriate proceedings, if it goes adverse to his interest, this petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.