IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16368 of 2008 Between: 1 K. Krishna Murthy S/o. K.V.R.P. Veeranna O/o. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, Ananthapur. 2 K. Vasantha Kumar S/o. K. Pakeerappa O/o. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, Ananthapur. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 O/o. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Hyderabad Regional Office, Personnel Department, rep. by its Dy. General Manager and Appropriate Authority, at Mohenjahi Market, Hyderabad. 2 Manager and Competent Authority, O/o. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Hyderabad Regional Office, Personnel Department, 7th Floor, at Moghuls Court, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 3 J. Panduranga Rao Manager and Enquiry Officer, O/o. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Hyderabad Regional Office, 86-Srinidhi Complex, S.D. Road, Secunderabad. 4 The Divisional Manager, O/o. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Ananthapur. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue writ or direction preferably writ of Mandamus declaring the charge memo issued by the 2nd respondent vide Memorandum dt. 08-05-2008 and appointment of 3rd respondent as enquiry oﬃcer is illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16368 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioners are employees of National Insurance Company Limited. The disciplinary authority issued separate memos, dated 08.05.2008, framing certain charges against the petitioners and requiring them to submit explanations. The petitioners submitted explanations and on a consideration of the same, the disciplinary authority proposed to conduct domestic enquiry. Accordingly, he passed separate orders, dated 30.05.2008, appointing one Mr. J.Panduranga Rao, Manager, as enquiry oﬃcer and one Smt. K.Mamta Lepcha, Assistant Manager, as Presenting Oﬃcer. The petitioners challenge the individual memos, dated 08.05.2008 and orders, dated 30.05.2008. According to them, there is no basis for the charges framed against them and the orders, dated 30.05.2008, does not accord with Rule 25 of the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1975 (for short ‘the Rules’), as amended from time to time. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioners are not able to point out that the charge memos were issued by an authority not vested with the power. It is not in dispute that the charge memos were issued by the disciplinary authority, as deﬁned under the relevant Rules. The question as to whether the charges framed against the petitioners are true or not is a matter, which needs to be decided in the domestic enquiry. The petitioners can put forward all their contentions and adduce evidence in the domestic enquiry. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the charge memos, dated 08.05.2008. Coming to the orders, dated 30.05.2008, under which the enquiry oﬃcer is appointed, the petitioners are not able to point out any material irregularity or contravention of the Rules. The amendments carried to Rule 25 of the Rules, at the most, have widened the scope, by permitting the appointment of retired oﬃcials of the Insurance Company as well as public sector undertakings as enquiry officers. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have serious objection as to the appointment of Mr. J.Panduranga Rao as enquiry officer. As of now, no legal inﬁrmity is pointed out. If the petitioners have any objections, on the basis of any speciﬁc facts, they have to make representation to the disciplinary authority, who, in turn, would consider the same and pass appropriate orders. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving open to the petitioners to make representations, as to the appointment of the enquiry oﬃcer, duly indicating the basis for the same. There shall be no order as to costs. ________ 31.07.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16368 of 2008 Date: 31.07.2008 JSU