[2026:RJ-JP:16011] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7214/2010 R.k.gupta S/o Shri Govind Narain Ji Gupta By Caste Mahajan, J- 126, Ashok Chowk, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur. Ex.development Officer. ----Petitioner Versus 1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Its General Manager, Registered And Head Office, 24 Whites Road, Chennai. 2. The Deputy General Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office, Sahara Chambers, Tonk Road, Jaipur. 3. The Chief Regional Manager, United Indiainsurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office, Sahara Chambers, Tonk Road, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanay Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhay Bhandari Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Rakshit Jain Mr. Vaibhav Bharghava HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN Order 16/04/2026 1. At the request and with the consent of learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. 2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the disciplinary authority dated 20.12.2006 (Annex.3) as well as order of the appellate authority dated 06.08.2007 (Annex.5). The disciplinary authority, having agreed with the findings of enquiry officer on charges, imposed punishment of removal. [2026:RJ-JP:16011] (2 of 6) [CW-7214/2010] 3. The facts disclosed are that the petitioner faced six charges relating to the financial year 2002 and 2003. All the charges relating to misconduct relating to the non-submission of cover- note issued to the customer and non-deposition of the premium collected from the customer in respect of policies issued to cover the motor vehicles. After framing of charge, the enquiry officer was appointed and the proceedings were held before the enquiry officer and the department has examined its own witnesses and place on record the evidence relied upon by them and the delinquent officer also participated in the enquiry. The delinquent officer himself was also examined to establish his defence. The enquiry officer, basing on the evidence on record submitted an enquiry report giving finding that all the charges have been proved. The disciplinary authority served the copy of enquiry report and the petitioner also submitted explanation to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority, having considered the findings of the enquiry officer and considering the issues raised by the petitioner in his representation, concurred with the findings of enquiry officer regarding proving of charges and imposed punishment of removal from service. 4. The petitioner assailing the order of disciplinary authority preferred an appeal and the appellate authority also disinclined to interfere in the findings of the enquiry officer and consequently, it confirmed the order of removal. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the enquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authority has not followed the fair procedure by giving fair opportunity to the petitioner to [2026:RJ-JP:16011] (3 of 6) [CW-7214/2010] disprove the charges. It is also his submission that the new cover-note books are issued only after verifying the submission of used cover-note books. The subsequent issuance of cover-note books is a clear indication of submission of all cover-notes which were already issued and utilized. These findings clearly demonstrate and disprove the claim of the disciplinary authority that he has not submitted the cover-notes utilized. 6. It is also his submission that the underwriting department required to scrutinize and account all the utilized cover-notes and any lapses must be attributable to the underwriting department and the petitioner cannot be blamed. Such a procedure has been clearly indicated by the circulars issued by the employer from time to time. Thus, the enquiry officer and disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority has not considered such lapses and wrongly come to the conclusion of charges proved against the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner’s obligation to submit used cover-note and requirement of deposit of the premium, which was collected from the customers are not in dispute. The petitioner having utilized the cover-notes and having collected the premium from the customers by issuing the coverage of policy has committed an act of misappropriation by not depositing the premium amount as well as not depositing the cover-note. It is also his submission that any lapse on the part of the underwriting department cannot give ground to exonerate the petitioner from proving his obligation that the cover-notes and the amounts were deposited with the respondent. [2026:RJ-JP:16011] (4 of 6) [CW-7214/2010] 8. It is also his submission that the enquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authority has rightly appreciated the findings on record particularly the officers from the division under which the petitioner worked during the relevant financial years clearly deposed before the enquiry officer that the said cover-notes were not submitted to the Divisional Office and the premium collected was also not deposited. Such evidence could have been rebutted by the respondents by producing appropriate evidence which he has not done. It is also his submission that even though petitioner made an attempt to summon cashier and if such request is rejected, such an order could have been challenged and he allowed the things to settle and now, such an order cannot be assailed in the present writ petition. 9. It is needless to say that the interference of this Court in disciplinary proceedings are very limited. Such an interference is required when there is an illegality in adopting the procedure. This Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence and arrive at different conclusion. The case of the petitioner has to be examined in the said parameters. 10. It is not the case of the petitioner that any procedural lapse occurred in conducting the enquiry. His only grievance is that he has raised certain defence before the enquiry officer, disciplinary authority as well as before the appellate authority. Such a defence was not properly appreciated and considered. His sole defence was that the cover-note books are issued after collecting the previously issued cover-note books and issuance of second cover-note book is a valid valid submission of previously utilised cover-note book. The evidence of MW-1 as well as the Branch [2026:RJ-JP:16011] (5 of 6) [CW-7214/2010] Manager clearly show that the next cover-note book required to be issued after submitting utilization of the previous cover-note book. There is an obligation on the part of underwriting department to verify utilization of cover-note book and issue fresh cover-note book. Even assuming that cover-note books were properly submitted, the charge is also misappropriation of the premium which was collected. Whenever the award is deposed, he was under the obligation and also prudence requires that same must be paid under receipt or acknowledgment. 11. In the present case, the petitioner has not produced any evidence that he has a proof of payment of money. His argument is that the cashier was initially cited as witness, who was not examined, however, the petitioner attempted to summon such a witness, but it was denied, thereby, he was deprived of fair participation in the proceedings. This argument can be relevant when he has a proof that he has paid the money. When he has no proof that he has paid money to cashier, the evidence of cashier is not much of relevance. The burden is on the petitioner to prove that amount was paid even without summoning of the cashier also. This burden has not discharge. Though there may be some lapses on the underwriting department from the officer in-charge at a relevant time, he may also be liable for his misconduct in not verifying the utilized cover-note and not accounting the amounts. Thus, the lapse on the part of officer in-charge at the relevant point of time could not be a ground to exonerate the petitioner. The petitioner required to prove his defence that he has deposited the premium which he has not done. This evidence was rightly appreciated by both the enquiry officer, the disciplinary [2026:RJ-JP:16011] (6 of 6) [CW-7214/2010] authority and appellate authority. This Court is not inclined to exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction to re-appreciate such evidence. This Court finds no perversity in findings and the entire findings are based on evidence on record. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner had rendered services of 25 years and the punishment of removal was disproportionate. This argument is required to be rejected. The petitioner’s act of misappropriation is not a single act of misappropriation, there are multiple proved misappropriation charges. 13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the punishment of removal is proportionate, therefore, the present writ petition, is dismissed as devoid of merits. (MUNNURI LAXMAN),J archit/p-30