Delhi High Court
P K Singh vs National Insurance Company ... on 23 March, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: March 23, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 2849/2018 & CM 11552/2018
P K SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nitin K. Gupta and Mr. Rahul
Sinha, Advocates
versus
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ANR.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Shoumik Mazumdar,
Advocate for respondent No.1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. Consequent upon a departmental inquiry, vide order of 10 th
November, 2015 (Annexure P-8), penalty of „dismissal from service‟ was
inflicted upon petitioner, who was working as Assistant at Noida Division
in respondent-National Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred
to as „the Company‟). Against dismissal order (Annexure P-8), petitioner
had filed a statutory appeal (Annexure P-9) on 12th January, 2016, which
has been dismissed vide order (Annexure P-10) in April, 2016.
Thereafter, against appellate order, petitioner had submitted a Memorial
(Annexure P-11) on 15th September, 2016 to respondent-Company
wherein it has been specifically averred as under: -
"That, being as Assistant, I have no financial power
to approve any of the claims. I only have obeyed orders of
my senior officers. But under same case, Mr. K.K. Gupta,
the then Divisional manager has been penalized with
reduction of 3 increments & Rs.50,000/-, Mr. K.K.
Aggarwal, the then Assistant Manager has been penalized
with reduction of 3 increments & Mr. Sudhir Kumar Gupta,
the then Divisional Manager was never questioned & given
clean chit, whereas I have been scapegoat & Penalized with
"Dismissal from service." "
2. The above-said Memorial (Annexure P-11) was partly accepted by
respondent-Company vide order (Annexure P-12) on 20th January, 2017
to the effect that punishment inflicted upon petitioner was found to be
disproportionate and the penalty of „dismissal from service‟ imposed
upon petitioner was altered to „reinstatement into services of the company
at a minimum basic of Assistant cadre, without any benefits‟.
3. Although it was sought to be urged by learned counsel for
petitioner that the penalty inflicted upon petitioner is not justified on
facts, but upon perusal of material on record, I find that the findings
returned against petitioner do not suffer from any apparent illegality or
infirmity. However, so far as proportionality of punishment inflicted upon
petitioner is concerned, I find that though impugned order (Annexure P-
12) scales down the penalty from „dismissal from service‟ to
„reinstatement into services of the company at a minimum basic of
Assistant cadre, without any benefits‟, which is permissible under the
National Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2012, but
the stand taken by petitioner in the Memorial (Annexure P-11), as noticed
hereinabove, has not been dealt with in impugned order, which calls for
reconsideration of impugned order.
4. In the facts and circumstances of this case, this petition is disposed
of while calling upon second respondent to reconsider impugned order
(Annexure P-12) in light of the stand taken by petitioner, as referred to
above, within a period of six weeks and the fate of reconsideration of
impugned order of 20th January, 2017 (Annexure P-12) be made known to
petitioner within two weeks thereafter, so that petitioner may avail of the
remedies as available in law, if need be.
5. With aforesaid directions, this petition and the application are
disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MARCH 23, 2018
s
