[2025:RJ-JP:16488] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5903/2010 Kailash Chandra Meena S/o Late Shri Ram Pratap Meena, R/o Village Jawli-Ka-Badh, Baswa, Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa at present working as Assistant Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Regional Training Centre, Air India Bhawan, Nehru Palace, Tonk Road, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Memorial Authority, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 25-27/A, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-100002. 2. Dy. General Manager & Appellate Authority Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 3rd Floor, Anand Bhawan, Sansar Chandra Road, Jaipur. 3. Regional Manager and Disciplinary Authority, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Post Box No. 158, III Floor, Anand Bhawan, Sansar Chandra Road, Jaipur. 4. Enquiry Officer & Dy. Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Post Box No. 158, III Floor, Anand Bhawan, Sansar Chandra Road, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Gupta, Advocate with Mr. Sohan Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Salecha, Advocate (through VC) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order RESERVED ON :: 15.04.2025 PRONOUNCED ON :: 25.04.2025 1. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the penalty order dated 30.01.2008 passed by the Regional Manager- cum-Disciplinary Authority, whereby penalty of withholding 04(four) increments permanently in the time scale of pay as well [2025:RJ-JP:16488] (2 of 13) [CW-5903/2010] as penalty of recovery of 50% of incurred MACT claim of Rs.1,97,550/- has been imposed upon the petitioner. He has also challenged order dated 28.04.2008 passed by Deputy General Manager and Appellate Authority, whereby appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected and penalty order was confirmed. He is also aggrieved by order dated 15.06.2009 passed by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, whereby the memorial submitted by him against the penalty order has also been rejected. 2. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has come out with a case that while he was holding the post of Development Officer in respondent-Corporation, he was served with a charge-sheet dated 11.08.2006 in which charges levelled against the petitioner are that in quite dishonest with mala fide intention, the petitioner granted comprehensive insurance under Covernote No.307570 issued on 07.10.1994 at 06:00 p.m. to an already accidented vehicle No. DL-1-LA-9216 (DCM Toyata) for the period commencing from 07.10.1994 to 06.10.1995, whereas the said vehicle had already met with an accident on 07.10.1994 at 04:00 p.m. While doing so, he quite intentionally did not put any time on the original covernote handed over to the insurer, whereas, he put time of issuance of covernote as 06:00 p.m. on the pink copy of the covernote deposited in the office. Thus, the above act of the petitioner had resulted in unwarranted third-party liability of Rs.1,97,550/- on the Company. It was also mentioned in the charge-sheet that by doing so, the petitioner has utterly failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and has acted dishonestly in a manner unbecoming of a public servant and [2025:RJ-JP:16488] (3 of 13) [CW-5903/2010] prejudicial to the interest of Company, thereby, violated Rule 3(1) (i)(ii)(iii), 4(1) & (5) of General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975. 3. The petitioner filed reply to the charge-sheet mentioning therein that the incident took place in the year 1994, whereas the charge-sheet has been given after 12 years. He further stated that he had issued Cover Note No.307570 at 06:00 p.m. on 07.10.1994 and had no knowledge with regard to the fact that the vehicle had already met with an accident at 04:00 p.m. Thus, he had acted in bona fide manner and has committed no misconduct whatsoever. 4. That, thereupon, inquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer who submitted his report on 18.09.2007, wherein he found that all the charges against the petitioner were proved. The inquiry report was forwarded to the petitioner along with letter dated 24.09.2007 calling upon him to submit his representation against the said inquiry report. As per petitioner, he submitted his representation on 12.11.2007 against the findings of the Inquiry Officer. However, without considering the representation, Disciplinary Authority has passed penalty order dated 30.01.2008, whereby major penalty of withholding of 04 (four) increments permanently in the time scale of pay as well as recovery of 50% of the incurred MACT claim of Rs.1,97,550/- has been imposed upon him. 5. That as per the petitioner, against the aforesaid penalty order dated 30.01.2008, he preferred departmental appeal before the Appellate Authority, however, the appeal was dismissed by the [2025:RJ-JP:16488] (4 of 13) [CW-5903/2010] Appellate Authority without considering the grounds of appeal vide order dated 28.04.2008. 6. The petitioner thereafter submitted one memorial in the form of representation dated 10.06.2008 before the Chairman-cum- Managing Director of respondent-insurance company for reconsidering the penalty. However, the aforesaid memorial-cum- representation was also rejected by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director vide order dated 15.06.2009. The petitioner prayed for quashing of the aforesaid penalty order, appellate order as well as order passed on memorial submitted by the petitioner. 7. The respondents filed reply to the writ petition contending therein that the scope of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matter regarding disciplinary inquiry is quite limited and the evidence led before the Inquiry Officer cannot be re-appreciated. It was also mentioned that charge- sheet containing specific charges was served upon the petitioner and since, the Disciplinary Authority was not satisfied with the reply to the charge-sheet submitted by the petitioner, Inquiry Officer was appointed to inquire into the charges against the petitioner, who submitted his detailed inquiry report dated 18.09.2007. In the inquiry report, the Inquiry Officer has examined the charges, reply to the charge-sheet, evidence led by the management as well as the delinquent petitioner and after discussing each and every aspect of the matter, the Inquiry Officer has given a finding that the petitioner was guilty of all the charges levelled against him. The disciplinary authority, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner of making a representation against the inquiry report has passed the penalty order dated 30.01.2008. [2025:RJ-JP:16488] (5 of 13) [CW-5903/2010] 8. It has also been averred in the reply to the writ petition that the appeal filed by the petitioner was duly considered by the appellate authority and finding no substance in the appeal, the same was rejected. The representation was also properly considered by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director which was submitted by the petitioner for reconsidering the penalty and the same has also been rejected finding no merits in the contents of representation. Hence, no interference is called for in the impugned orders and the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be rejected. 9. I have considered the material available on record and have also heard learned counsel for both the parties. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the charge-sheet has been issued to the petitioner after around 12 years from the date of alleged incident for which no plausible explanation has been put forward by the respondents. 11. It has further been submitted that it was only when the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tis Hazari, New Delhi has passed an award under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, making the respondent-Insurance company liable for compensating the claimant, the respondent-Insurance company has issued the impugned charge-sheet and proceeded further to penalize the petitioner. 12. As per the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Insurance company should not have waited for the judgment of MACT, in case the respondents wanted to initiate any disciplinary inquiry in the matter. It has further been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that original covernote was never placed on record [2025:RJ-JP:16488] (6 of 13) [CW-5903/2010] either before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal or before the Inquiry Officer and as such, there was no sufficient evidence or material available on record, which could have prompted the Inquiry Officer to hold the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the Inquiry Officer has given conjectural finding on the basis of surmises, which is not based upon any legal evidence whatsoever. Therefore, findings arrived at by the Inquiry Officer were perverse and could not have been relied upon by the Disciplinary Authority for the purpose of penalizing the petitioner with major penalty. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that neither the Appellate Authority nor the Chairman-cum-Managing Director considered the submissions made by the petitioner for assailing the penalty order. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire inquiry report is faulty and based upon assumptions and therefore, the entire procedure along with the penalty orders are liable to be quashed and set aside. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nand Kishore Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in AIR 1978 SC 1277 as well as another judgment of State of Assam Vs. Mohan Chandra Kalita & Anr. reported in AIR 1972 SC 2535. 15. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company has submitted that this Court while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot sit as an Appellate Court to re-appreciate the [2025:RJ-JP:16488] (7 of 13) [CW-5903/2010] evidence. It was also submitted that finding no force in the reply to the charge-sheet, submitted by the petitioner, the Inquiry Officer was appointed. Learned counsel for the respondent sought indulgence of this Court over the inquiry report dated 18.09.2007, wherein the Inquiry Officer observed in the following manner:- "Undersigned observes that different statements were given by Shri K C Meena to various authorities at different places, in his defence as appended below:- i. Letter dated 12/11/1998 addressed to AGM, RO New Delhi, wherein he has mentioned that "कवरनोट काटने का भी समय 6.00 बजे सायंकाल का है लेककन मै जलबाजी मे था और यहाँ टाइम डालना धान मे नहीं रहा और दू सरे कदन ऑकफस मे लेजाकर जमा करा कदया। कजस कॉलम मे समय नहीं डाला उसके पकत मेरी कोई गलत कनयती नहींथी।" ii. Letter dated 04/07/2005 given to Shri Suresh Chandra, VO that " मैनने तो 6.00 बजे गाडी का इंसेकन करके ही कवरनोट काटा था।" but he is silent about the time of commencement of risk which was the main contention of subject matter. iii. Letter dated September 21, 2006 addressed to Shri S L Aggarwal, RM & DA reply to the chargesheet that "I issued the covernote No.307570 at 6.00PM specially mentioning the time of inspection at 6.00PM on the original covernote" but again he remained silent about the time of commencement of risk which is the main contention of subject matter. In view of the above statements, the Enquiry Authority put all the copies of covernote before CO and asked him to give reply to the question after comparative study of all copies of covernotes about commencement of risk then Shri Meena replied that there is no dispute in insured's name, father's name but there is some variation in various copies of covernote about the commencement of risk as mentioned below:- Type of covernote Commencement of risk Vehicle Inspection time Remarks Time Date Certified copy of covernote (deemed original) Nothing ( कु छ नहीं) 7/10/94 Nil Erased as stated by CO Certified copy of covernote, Office copy (Pink) 6.00PM 7/10/94 6.00PM 6.00PM inserted later on by CO by pen as observed by [2025:RJ-JP:16488] (8 of 13) [CW-5903/2010] the Court Yellow carbon copy (original) 'O' 7/10/94 6.00PM 'O' with same carbon impression as other particulars are mentioned From the above, it is observed that it is evidently clear that covernote in question was issued at 6.00PM on 7/10/94 but Charged Officer has put '0' (zero) at the place of commencement of risk. The original story is told by yellow copy of covernote. Later on he added 6.0 in besides to original zero making overwriting in office copy (pink), this fact was also noticed by the court where vide their judgment dated 05/04/2004 (page No.10). The question of inspection of vehicle is not tenable since the accident took place at 4.00PM on 7/10/94 and vehicle in question was seized at the spot by the police authority as per seizer memo, which was adduced in the court." 16. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance company that petitioner intentionally put different time of issuing covernote on different copies of the covernote which are issued to the insured and are also kept at different level in the insurance company. At some places the petitioner had put '0' (zero) at the column of commencement of risk mentioned in the covernote, whereas in other copies he had mentioned 06:00 p.m. as a time for commencement of risk. Quite surprisingly, on the original covernote issued to petitioner-insured, he mentioned 04:00 p.m. at the same place. Thus, in quite dishonest and mala fide manner, the petitioner mentioned different time in different copies of the same covernote, which was done to extend undue favour to the Insured and to provide coverage of insurance to the Insured in respect of a vehicle which had already met with an accident prior to issuance of covernote. [2025:RJ-JP:16488] (9 of 13) [CW-5903/2010] 17. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that thus after appreciating the entire evidence on record including the statements of the petitioner himself, the Inquiry Officer has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of the charges levelled against him. 18. The inquiry report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer to the Disciplinary Authority, who supplied a copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner for providing him opportunity to submit the representation against the inquiry report. Representation was also submitted against the findings of the inquiry report by the petitioner. The learned counsel submitted that entire record was placed before the Disciplinary Authority and after considering the complete material available on record, the Disciplinary Authority has rightly inflicted penalty of withholding four increments permanently in the time scale of pay as well as recovery of 50% of incurred MACT claim of Rs.1,97,550/- upon the petitioner. The aforesaid penalty order has also been examined by the Appellate Authority in appeal as well as by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director while considering the representation-cum-memorial submitted by the petitioner. 19. As regards delay in issuing the charge-sheet, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the covernote in question was the subject matter of consideration by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal or therefore, it was in the fitness of the things to wait for the findings of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, which is also a competent authority to consider the issue with regard to coverage by the insurance policy and genuineness of the covernote. [2025:RJ-JP:16488] (10 of 13) [CW-5903/2010] 20. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that bare perusal of the judgment dated 05.04.2004 delivered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal would reveal that the learned Tribunal has also put serious questions over the genuineness of the different entries with regard to timing of issuance of covernote, which have been mentioned at different copies/carbon copies of the covernote. 21. The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that it cannot be said that original covernote was not placed on record. He also stated that even certified copy of the covernote was available and carbon copies of the cover note have also been placed along with the reply to the writ petition. He submits that different entries with regard to timing of issuance/risk coverage mentioned in different copies would enable any person of prudent mind to draw a conclusion that the covernote has been issued in quite irregular manner and to extend undue benefit to the beneficiary. 22. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that due procedure for inquiry has been followed in the instant matter and there is no scope of interference, hence, the writ petition is filed by the petitioner is liable to be rejected. 23. On perusal of the record as well as after hearing learned counsel for both the parties it would come out that the charges levelled against the petitioner were quite serious in nature and conclusion of charge-sheet was totally dependent upon detailed fact-finding inquiry on the basis of evidence and material on record. This Court finds that Inquiry Officer while conducting inquiry has given fair opportunity of hearing as well as of putting [2025:RJ-JP:16488] (11 of 13) [CW-5903/2010] forward defense to the petitioner. He was given opportunity to cross-examine the management witnesses as well as his own statements in defense were also recorded. The concerned covernote was placed on record of the Inquiry Officer and was also shown to the petitioner while putting questions during cross- examination to him. This Court has also examined the judgment delivered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal only for the purposes of finding out the observations made out by the learned Tribunal with regard to genuineness of the entries made in different copies of cover note by the petitioner. This Court finds that the Tribunal, under circumstances where different timings with regard to commencement of risk were shown over the different copies of covernote, had no alternative except to assume that the insurance company could not prove its case that the insured vehicle was not covered on the basis of such suspicious different copies of covernote. 24. The petitioner being Development Officer of an insurance company was responsible for issuing a valid, unambiguous and explicitly clear covernote by mentioning same timing of issuance of covernote/coverage of risk over all the copies. Merely the fact that different timings/entries were made in different copies would give rise to presumption with regard to misconduct committed by the petitioner. 25. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Bhupendra Singh reported in AIR 2024 SC 4034, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that this Court while exercising jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the [2025:RJ-JP:16488] (12 of 13) [CW-5903/2010] Constitution of India rather exercise a supervisory jurisdiction and does not sit as an Appellate Court, hence, the evidence led before the Inquiry Officer cannot be re-appreciated and merely the patent illegality, perversity and violation of procedure contemplated in the disciplinary Rules can be appreciated by the writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for examining the matters relating to Disciplinary Authority. Hence, in the instant case, where the petitioner has utterly failed to point out any patent illegality or procedural error in the disciplinary proceedings conducted by the respondent-insurance company, no interference is warranted. 26. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner in the case of Nand Kishore Prasad (supra) is not at all applicable for the reason that in the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that mere suspicion cannot be allowed to take the place of proof in domestic inquiries. However, in the case in hand, the charge-sheet was not based upon merely on suspicion and there was sufficient material available on record to prove the petitioner guilty. 27. Another Judgment cited by the petitioner in the case of Mohan Chandra Kalita (supra), in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in departmental inquiry the charges cannot be sustained against the delinquent merely on the basis of conjecture and in absence of evidence. However, the aforesaid judgment is also not helpful for the petitioner, for the reasons that in the case in hand there is sufficient evidence on record to prove the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him and the findings arrived at by the Inquiry Officer are also not conjectural or perverse. [2025:RJ-JP:16488] (13 of 13) [CW-5903/2010] 28. The arguments raised by the petitioner that charge-sheet was issued after 12 years from the date of incident is also devoid of any force for the reason that delay has sufficiently been explained by the respondents by stating that the covernote in question, on the basis of which charge-sheet has been framed in disciplinary proceedings, was also a subject-matter of consideration by the MACT Court and any inquiry during the proceedings before the MACT Court would prejudice the case of the insurance company before the MACT Court. Hence, this Court does not find any substance in the submission made by the petitioner in this regard. 29. In the facts and circumstance mentioned hereinabove, this Court also does not find that looking to the seriousness of the charges levelled against him and duly proved against the petitioner, the punishment imposed upon the petitioner was either excessive or disproportionate. Hence, even on the question of quantum of punishment, no interference is called for in the instant writ petition. 30. In the light of above discussion, no interference is warranted in the impugned penalty order, appellate order and order passed on representation by the respondent-insurance company and therefore, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 31. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 32. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J Daksh/457