[2025:RJ-JP:13886] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4002/2001 Bhairon Singh Meena S/o Shri G.L. Meena aged about 40 years, R/o Mohan Nagar, Behind Hospital, Hindaun City (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Regional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. 10, Narayan Singh Road, Jaipur. 2. Dy. Manager (Development), National Insurance Co. LTD., Jaipur Regional Office, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Naina Saraf For Respondent(s) : Mr. A N Pareek HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 26/03/2025 1. The present petition is filed with the following prayers: “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and the punishment order 13.03.2000 may kindly be quashed and set aside. Any other appropriate order or direction which may be considered just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. That the cost of this writ petition may be awarded in favour of petitioner.” 2. In the backdrop of order dated 05.03.2025, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that records are not placed before the Court howsoever, qua the disagreement notice, neither any notice was served, nor any opportunity was given to the petitioner. 3. In this background, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner on 17.06.1998 with the delay of approximately three years, from the alleged incidence, and upon the inquiry report dated 12.08.1999, the [2025:RJ-JP:13886] (2 of 3) [CW-4002/2001] punishment order was passed. It is further submitted that petitioner was declared as “not guilty” and exonerated from all the charges by the Inquiry Officer, after due inquiry being conducted. 4. Further, it is submitted that Disciplinary Authority without assigning any justifiable reason qua disagreement with the Inquiry Officer or without granting any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, has imposed a penalty of reduction in basic pay by two stages. Thence, it can be deduced that the said action of the respondents per-se violates the principle of natural justice, audi alteram partem, and the settled position of law. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the petitioner was having strong antecedents registered against him, nevertheless, on multiple occasions charge-sheets were issued against him; that the contentions made by the petitioner in the appeal vis-a-vis insured cover note is even dismissed by the AGM and appellate authority vide order dated 02.03.2002. It is for the justified disagreement, that a notice was issued to the petitioner, which is permissible under Clause 26(2) of the National’s HR Manual, 2017. 6. Having heard the rival arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and upon a perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the following view: 6.1 That the alleged incidence occurred in the year 1995, and a charge-sheet was issued after a lapse of three years on 17.06.1998. The inquiry committee by its report has exonerated the petitioner and have stated the petitioner to be “not guilty” qua in its report dated 12.08.1999. 6.2 That the Disciplinary Authority without assigning any justifiable reason qua its disagreement with the inquiry report’s opinion [2025:RJ-JP:13886] (3 of 3) [CW-4002/2001] and in violation of principle of natural justice, audi alteram partem, and the settled position of law, has imposed a penalty qua the petitioner which is reduction in basic pay by two stages. 7. Reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner upon the judgment of State Bank of India and Ors. vs. K.P. Narayanan K. Utty reported in AIR 2003 (2) SCC 449 and S.P. Malhotra vs. P.N.B. & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.5128/2013 with the contentions that if inquiry report has exonerated and no opportunity is given while issuance of disagreement by the Disciplinary Authority, then that disciplinary proceedings and order thereto is ought to be quashed, seems prima facie valid. 8. In light of the above, and taking note of the fact that under the circumstances when it is noted that Disciplinary Authority without assigning any reasonable or justifiable reason or without granting opportunity of hearing thus violating the principle of audi alteram partem has issued a revered opinion; it can be noted that the same is in violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner. 9. Therefore, it is directed that the punishment order dated 13.03.2000 be quashed and set aside, howsoever, taking note of the fact that there were antecedents registered against the petitioner and allied manipulation in the cover note, this Court grants a liberty to the respondents to initiate reasonable proceedings, as per governing statue, if they so choose, in future. 10. In light of the above, the instant petition is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed. (SAMEER JAIN),J DEEPAK/5