1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (w)NO.17/1997 Pramod Singhvi Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Date of Judgment :: 06-02-2008 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI Mr. Anil Bhandari, for Mr. N.M. Lodha, for the appellant. Mr. M.S. Singhvi, for the respondent. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the contesting respondent-United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Facts of the case lies in narrow compass. The appellant was an employee of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Certain charges were framed against him and accordingly a departmental proceeding was initiated. The charges were found to be proved and accordingly he was removed from service. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Regional Manager of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. passed the order of removal and he being the appellate authority, no appeal would have been maintainable before it, and therefore the matter was raised before this Court in writ jurisdiction. The writ application however, was disposed of with a liberty to the writ petitioner to file appeal against the order of removal before the 2 General Manager (Personnel) and the appeal was directed to be disposed of expeditiously in accordance with law. The appellant however, being dissatisfied from the order passed by the learned Single Judge, preferred this appeal. We are informed that operation of the order impugned was stayed by this Court and this appeal was admitted for hearing. The question which has fallen for consideration precisely is whether against an order of penalty passed by the Regional Manager, the appeal would be maintainable before it. It is true that the penalty was imposed by the Regional Manager and statutory provisions enables the Regional Manager to hear appeals against an order of removal. This Court faced with the situation, therefore directed the appellant to prefer appeal before the General Manager (Personnel) who was much above in the hierarchy than the Regional Manager, and obviously the appeal would have been maintainable before the General Manager(Personnel). The findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in this view of the matter, cannot be said to be either bad in law or on facts nor any anomalous position will arise in directing the General Manager (Personnel) to entertain and dispose of the appeal. In view of this background, we do not find any scope for interference in this appeal. This appeal accordingly is dismissed. 3 It is needless to say that the appellant, if so advised, may file appeal before the General Manager (Personnel) as already directed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. [MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI],J. [NARAYAN ROY],CJ. Praveen