THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.19592 OF 2009 Dated: 16.02.2010 Between: T. Srinivasa Rao .. Petitioner And 1. The National Insurance Co. Ltd., rep. by its Deputy General Manager and Competent Authority, Hyderabad Regional Office, Twin City Market Complex, Mozamjahi Market, Hyderabad-1.,and another. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.19592 OF 2009 ORDER : The petitioner herein is working as Administrative Officer in the National Insurance Company Limited. By order dated 31.08.2009 passed by the 1st respondent the petitioner was awarded the penalty of demotion to the cadre of Senior Assistant with a basic pay of Rs.11,525/- in exercise of the powers conferred under Rules 23 and 26 of General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975 (for short, ‘Statutory Rules’). The said order is assailed in this writ petition contending that the penalty imposed was arbitrary, and illegal being contrary to the statutory rules. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record, as well as the counter- affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. Admittedly against the impugned order an alternative remedy of appeal is available under Rules 31 & 34 of the Statutory Rules. However, the petitioner contends that notwithstanding the said alternative remedy the writ petition is maintainable since the impugned order was in violation of principles of natural justice and that apart the penalty imposed was not contemplated under the Statutory Rules. So far as the first ground is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the action of the Inquiry Officer in concluding the enquiry without considering the petitioner’s request for sending the crucial documents to the forensic experts for examination amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. It is to be noticed that the charges levelled against the petitioner included that he had availed loan from different Banks and Financial Institutions on the basis of pay slips which were allegedly fabricated. The petitioner filed his written statement of defence denying the charges and having found the same not satisfactory, regular departmental proceedings were initiated. Before the Inquiry Officer, the petitioner made a request to send the salary confirmation / undertaking letters to the Forensic Science Laboratory for expert’s opinion as to whether the same were signed by the authorized officers of the company or not. When the said request was turned down by the Inquiry Officer, the petitioner filed W.P.No.22048 of 2008. After hearing both the parties, the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 06.04.2009 holding as under: “Having considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel, I am of the view that in the nature of the charges framed against the petitioner, it is not necessary to elicit expert’s opinion on the question whether the salary confirmation/undertaking letters produced by the petitioner were signed by the authorized officer or not. As noted above, there is no accusation against the petitioner that he either forged the signatures or fabricated the documents. Therefore, the apprehension of the petitioner that he may be found guilty of either fabrication or forgery does not appear to have any basis. In the light of the stand taken by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 that the scope of enquiry will not be concerned with the alleged fabrication/forgery of the documents, it is not necessary for the petitioner to seek expert opinion with regard to the genuineness or otherwise of the salary confirmation/undertaking letters. The scope of the charges is confined to whether the net salary drawn by the petitioner for the months of April 2002, December 2002 and October 2003 is in conformity of the confirmation/ undertaking letters or not. If it is found that there is no discrepancy between the amounts mentioned in the salary confirmation/undertaking letters and the net salary actually drawn, the petitioner will be entitled for exoneration. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of.” The said order has become final and therefore it is not open to the petitioner now to contend that the petitioner was denied reasonable opportunity since his request to send the original pay slips to the forensic experts was not considered by the Inquiry Officer. The second contention raised by the petitioner is that the penalty imposed in the impugned order is not contemplated under the Statutory Rules. Rule 23 of the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975 provides for the major penalties. Clause (d) of Rule 23 which is relevant for the purpose of the present case runs as under : (d) Reduction to a Lower service or post or to a Lower time-scale, or to a Lower stage in a time-scale. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the penalty imposed in the impugned order i.e., demotion to the cadre of Senior Assistant with a basic pay of Rs.11,525/- amounts to double punishment since the same results in reduction to a lower post as well as reduction to a lower time-scale. It is also contended that such a punishment was not contemplated under the Statutory Rules. In the additional counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is explained that the basic pay attached to the post of Senior Assistant as per the revised salaries is in the pay scale of 6885- 485-4-8825-540(15)-16925. It is further stated that though the petitioner ought to have been put in the said pay scale with the starting basic pay of Rs.6,885/-, a lenient view was taken by the disciplinary authority by fixing his basic pay at Rs.11,525/- in the pay scale mentioned above. Rule 23 (d) provides for a major penalty which may be either reduction to a lower service or reduction to a lower post or reduction to a lower time scale or reduction to a lower stage in a time-scale. In the instant case, the penalty imposed against the petitioner was demotion to the cadre of Senior Assistant i.e., reduction to a lower post. Consequently the petitioner shall be entitled only to the scale of pay attached to said post of Senior Assistant. It is clear from the additional counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents that the basic pay fixed in the impugned order comes within the pay scale attached to the post of Senior Assistant. In the circumstances, the petitioner’s contention that the impugned penalty also results in reduction to a lower time-scale and thus it amounts to double punishment is untenable. May be that, the petitioner’s basic pay at the time of his promotion from the post of Senior Assistant to Administrative Officer in June, 2004 was Rs.17,160/- and the basic pay now fixed in the impugned order is less than that. However on that ground it cannot be held that there was reduction to a lower time-scale. Hence, both the grounds upon which the impugned order is assailed in this writ petition being untenable are hereby rejected. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, it is for the petitioner to work out the alternative remedy of appeal provided under Rule 31 of the Statutory Rules and it is not necessary for this Court to go into the same. Accordingly, leaving it open to the petitioner to work out the remedy of appeal available under the Statutory Rules, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 16.02.2010 gbs