9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the insurance cover note issued by the appellant. 2. Allegation of antedating the insurance cover note. 3. Validity of the disciplinary proceedings and findings. 4. Relevance of the civil court's judgment in the disciplinary proceedings. 5. Application of mind by the appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings. 6. Relief to be granted to the appellant. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Insurance Cover Note Issued by the Appellant: The appellant, an Inspector, issued four insurance cover notes on 21.10.1976 for M/s Aman Singh Munshi Lal. One cover note was alleged to be antedated after a fire incident on 22.10.1976. The trial court found the cover note valid and not antedated, relying on a handwriting expert's opinion. The civil court decreed the suit for Rs. 98,550.16, and the High Court upheld this decree. 2. Allegation of Antedating the Insurance Cover Note: A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the appellant for allegedly antedating the cover note. The Enquiry Officer found the appellant guilty based on circumstantial evidence and magnifying glass examination of the despatch register. However, the civil court found no forgery and held the insurance contract valid. 3. Validity of the Disciplinary Proceedings and Findings: The Enquiry Officer's findings were based on indirect evidence and assumptions. The appellant was removed from service without a second show cause notice. The appellate authority dismissed the appellant's appeal without a speaking order. The High Court initially reinstated the appellant, but the Supreme Court remitted the matter back, emphasizing that the civil court's findings could not dislodge the departmental inquiry's conclusions. 4. Relevance of the Civil Court's Judgment in the Disciplinary Proceedings: The Supreme Court noted that the civil court's judgment was relevant and should have been considered by the disciplinary authorities. The civil court's findings on the validity of the cover note and the absence of forgery were significant. The disciplinary authority and the Chairman-cum-Managing Director failed to apply their minds to these findings. 5. Application of Mind by the Appellate Authority in the Disciplinary Proceedings: The appellate authority did not provide a reasoned order, failing to consider the civil court's judgment and other relevant factors. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for the appellate authority to apply its mind and provide a reasoned decision, especially when serious contentions are raised. 6. Relief to be Granted to the Appellant: The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgments and directed the reinstatement of the appellant with 50% back wages, considering the long duration of the proceedings and the appellant's suffering. The Court refrained from remitting the matter back to the disciplinary authority due to the prolonged nature of the case. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, directed the appellant's reinstatement with partial back wages, and highlighted the importance of considering relevant judgments and providing reasoned decisions in disciplinary proceedings. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.
|
