DR. GAJENDRA SINGH vs. UNION OF INDIA

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4149 of 2022  Dr. Gajendra Singh             ...Appellant  Versus   Union of India & Ors.                            ...Respondents J U D G M E N T  M. R. Shah, J. 1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned Judgment and Order 14.02.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Appeal No.64492 of 2008 by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal and has not interfered with the  judgment  and order passed  by the Signature Not Verified learned Single Judge in which the petitioner challenged the Digitally signed by R Natarajan Date: 2022.07.11 17:11:55 IST Reason: penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority of “removal from 1 service   which   would   not   be   disqualification   for   future employment”, the original petitioner has preferred the present appeal. 2. The   appellant   herein   was   a   Branch   Manager   of   the United Insurance Company during the period 1995­96.   He issued an Insurance Cover Note No.543675 on 20.03.1996 with respect to the vehicle bearing no.DL 1P 7143 belonging to one Chander Singh for the period 20.03.1996 to 19.03.1997. On that very day, he issued another cover note.  It was found that for the first cover note No.543675, he had not taken any premium and for the second Cover Note No.543680 a cheque given by the insured had bounced.  The vehicle insured met with an accident on 20.04.1996 relating to which a claim was filed on the basis of the first insurance Cover Note No.543675. An award of Rs.3,24,400/­ came to be passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Tribunal.  The Insurance Company accepted the   same.     However,   the   disciplinary   authority   issued   a charge­sheet to the appellant on 18.10.2001 alleging that the appellant   had   issued   a   Cover   Note   No.543675   without collecting any premium, he had thus caused a financial loss 2 to the insurance company.  Therefore, it was alleged that the appellant had failed to maintain integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of company. The charges were replied to by the appellant.   He explained the circumstances under which he had issued the first cover note as at the relevant time when the cover note was issued, he had relied upon the assurance given by the insured that he will send the amount through his person, but he did not send the   premium   amount.     Instead,   the   insured   applied   for another   insurance   policy   for   which   a   cheque   was   given, however the cheque bounced.   Therefore, it was the case on behalf of the  appellant that having long standing relations between the insured and the insurance company, he relied upon the assurance given by the insured that he will send the amount and, on that assurance, he issued the first cover note. In the departmental enquiry the charge levelled against the appellant came to be proved.  The enquiry report was accepted by the disciplinary authority.  Therefore, the appellant came to be removed from service however without any disqualification of a future employment.  The appellant challenged the order of removal before the learned Single Judge.  The learned Single 3 Judge dismissed the writ petition.   The judgment and order passed   by   the   learned   Single   Judge   dismissing   the   writ petition has been confirmed by the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and   considering   the   reply   to   the   charge­sheet   and   the plausible   explanation   given   by   the   appellant   –   delinquent officer, we are of the opinion that the order of removal passed by the disciplinary authority against the appellant who had rendered approximately over twenty years of service and the fact that the  appellant had  an unblemished service record throughout,  we are of  the  opinion that  the punishment of removal from service is disproportionate to the charge and the misconduct held to be proved.   It appears that the insured was   an   old   customer   and   the   insured   and   the   insurer company   had   a   long­standing   relationship   with   him.     The petitioner relied upon the assurance given by the insured that he will send the money and on that assurance the appellant issued the first cover note.  However, at the same time when the second cover was issued with respect to the very vehicle, 4 the appellant was required to cancel the earlier cover note which the appellant did not cancel, which has resulted in loss to  the   insurance   company.    However,   at  the   same  time  it cannot be said that the appellant failed to maintain integrity. Therefore, this is a fit case to impose any other punishment lesser/other than the removal from service. 4. In view of the above and for the reason stated above present Appeal Succeeds in Part.   The impugned judgment and orders passed by the High Court are hereby quashed and set   aside.     The   order   of   punishment   imposed   by   the disciplinary authority removing the appellant from service is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted to the   disciplinary   authority   to   impose   any   other   appropriate punishment   lesser/other   than   the   order   of   removal   from service.   The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of present order. 5 Present appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. …………………………………J.              (M. R. SHAH) …………………………………J.                                                  (B.V. NAGARATHNA) New Delhi,  July 11, 2022. 6