Supreme Court of India
DR. GAJENDRA SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. on 11 July 2022
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 1
DR. GAJENDRA SINGH
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4149 of 2022)
JULY 11, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Service Law – Disciplinary action – Punishment lesser/otherthan removal from service – The appellant, Branch Manager ofInsurance Company, issued a Insurance cover note with respect tothe vehicle without taking any premium – A second cover note wasalso issued with respect to the same vehicle – The vehicle met withan accident relating to which a claim was filed on the basis of thefirst cover note – Claim was accepted by the company – Thereafter,appellant was removed from the service based on the report submittedby the disciplinary authority – It was alleged by the authority thatthe appellant had failed to maintain integrity, devotion to duty andacted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the company – Writpetition dismissed by the High Court – On appeal, held: Appellanthad an unblemished service record throughout – It appears that theinsured was an old customer and the insured and the insurer companyhad a long-standing relationship with him – The appellant reliedupon the assurance given by the insured that he will send themoney and issued the first cover note – However, when the secondcover was issued with respect to the very same vehicle, the appellantwas required to cancel the earlier cover note which the appellantdid not cancel, which resulted in loss to the insurance company – Itcannot be said that the appellant failed to maintain integrity – Thepunishment of removal from service is disproportionate to the chargeand the misconduct held to be proved – Therefore, it is a fit caseto impose any other punishment lesser/other than the removal fromservice.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4149of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.02.2017 of the High Courtof Judicature at Allahabad in Writ A. No.64492 of 2008.
1
A
B
C
D
EF
G
H
ATripurari Ray, Balwant Singh Billowria, Nithyananda Murthy P.,Ms. Bhanu Prabha, Laxmi Narayan Sharma, Suresh Kumar Sharma,Anirudh Ray, Vishnu Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant.
Shyam Gopal, Ms. Suhashini Sen, Chinmayee Chandra, SiddhantKohli, Raj Bahadur Yadav, Mohit Paul, Vineet Malhotra, Vishal Gohri,BBikram Dwivedi, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned JudgmentCand Order 14.02.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature atAllahabad in Writ Appeal No.64492 of 2008 by which the High Courthas dismissed the said appeal and has not interfered with the judgmentand order passed by the learned Single Judge in which the petitionerchallenged the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority of “removalfrom service which would not be disqualification for future employment”,Dthe original petitioner has preferred the present appeal.
2. The appellant herein was a Branch Manager of the UnitedInsurance Company during the period 1995-96. He issued an InsuranceCover Note No.543675 on 20.03.1996 with respect to the vehicle bearingno.DL 1P 7143 belonging to one Chander Singh for the period 20.03.1996Eto 19.03.1997. On that very day, he issued another cover note. It wasfound that for the first cover note No.543675, he had not taken anypremium and for the second Cover Note No.543680 a cheque given bythe insured had bounced. The vehicle insured met with an accident on20.04.1996 relating to which a claim was filed on the basis of the firstinsurance Cover Note No.543675. An award of Rs.3,24,400/- came toFbe passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Tribunal. The InsuranceCompany accepted the same. However, the disciplinary authority issueda charge-sheet to the appellant on 18.10.2001 alleging that the appellanthad issued a Cover Note No.543675 without collecting any premium, hehad thus caused a financial loss to the insurance company. Therefore, itGwas alleged that the appellant had failed to maintain integrity, devotion toduty and acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of company. Thecharges were replied to by the appellant. He explained the circumstancesunder which he had issued the first cover note as at the relevant timewhen the cover note was issued, he had relied upon the assurance givenby the insured that he will send the amount through his person, but he didH
not send the premium amount. Instead, the insured applied for anotherinsurance policy for which a cheque was given, however the chequebounced. Therefore, it was the case on behalf of the appellant that havinglong standing relations between the insured and the insurance company,he relied upon the assurance given by the insured that he will send theamount and, on that assurance, he issued the first cover note. In thedepartmental enquiry the charge levelled against the appellant came tobe proved. The enquiry report was accepted by the disciplinary authority.Therefore, the appellant came to be removed from service howeverwithout any disqualification of a future employment. The appellantchallenged the order of removal before the learned Single Judge. Thelearned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. The judgment and orderpassed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition has beenconfirmed by the impugned judgment and order passed by the DivisionBench.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties andconsidering the reply to the charge-sheet and the plausible explanationgiven by the appellant – delinquent officer, we are of the opinion that theorder of removal passed by the disciplinary authority against the appellantwho had rendered approximately over twenty years of service and thefact that the appellant had an unblemished service record throughout,we are of the opinion that the punishment of removal from service isdisproportionate to the charge and the misconduct held to be proved. Itappears that the insured was an old customer and the insured and theinsurer company had a long-standing relationship with him. The petitionerrelied upon the assurance given by the insured that he will send themoney and on that assurance the appellant issued the first cover note.However, at the same time when the second cover was issued withrespect to the very vehicle, the appellant was required to cancel theearlier cover note which the appellant did not cancel, which has resultedin loss to the insurance company. However, at the same time it cannotbe said that the appellant failed to maintain integrity. Therefore, this is afit case to impose any other punishment lesser/other than the removalfrom service.
4. In view of the above and for the reason stated above presentAppeal Succeeds in Part. The impugned judgment and orders passed bythe High Court are hereby quashed and set aside. The order of punishmentimposed by the disciplinary authority removing the appellant from service A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Ais hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted to thedisciplinary authority to impose any other appropriate punishment lesser/other than the order of removal from service. The aforesaid exerciseshall be completed within a period of three months from the date ofpresent order.
BPresent appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. However,in the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as tocosts.
C
Ankit Gyan
(Assisted by : Rahul Rathi, LCRA)
Appeal partly allowed.
D
E
F
G
H