THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.18139 OF 2001 DT.02.12.2010 Between: Dr.N.Haranath …………….Petitioner Vs. United India Insurance Co.Ltd., represented by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director and three others. ………………….Respondents O R D E R: The petitioner filed this writ petition in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings of second the respondent in H.O.No.96078:32:2001, dated 22.04.2001 confirming the order of the third respondent in H.O.96078:32:2001, dated 30.03.2001 as illegal and void and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled to be continued as Administrative Officer with all usual pay and allowances applicable to the post till his retirement on 18.05.2001. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner herein was working as Assistant Administrative Officer by direct recruitment in the year 1979 under ‘specialist’ category with ten years experience and subsequently promoted as Administrative Officer in 1982. Thereafter, he was promoted as Assistant Manager in 1988 at Hyderabad and Mahaboobnagar. He also worked as Assistant Manager at Hyderabad Regional Office and Central Office and Regional Offices, Chennai. He worked as Assistant Administrative Officer in the Regional Office at Hyderabad. While he was working as Assistant Manager in Hyderabad Regional Office, he was issued a memorandum, dated 24.12.1996 by the second respondent, asking to submit his explanation to the following charges framed against him. i) That Dr.N.Harnath, Assistant Manager, Regional Office, Hyderabad while functioning as Branch Manager, Branch Office, Mahaboobnagar during the period of April 1988 committed grave misconduct in the matter of introducing, altering and approving the tailor-made Group Mediclaim Policies bearing No.50301/608/1/001/87 and 50301/608/1/002/87 to M/s. Medi Save Health Association and to M/s. Medi-card Health Association respectively as detailed in the statement of imputations, knowing fully well that the higher authorities are introducing Novel Group Mediclaim Policies to suit the needs of the General Public and caused undue pecuniary advantage to the tune of Rs.7,99,474/- and corresponding loss to the company and thus showed undue official favour to the Private Health Associations. ii) That Dr.N.Harnath Assistant Manager, Regional Office, Hyderabad while functioning as Assistant Manager, Regional Office, Hyderabad (RIB) department committed grave misconduct in the matter of preparation of a note for three tailor made Group Mediclaim Policies issued to M/s. ABC Association, M/s. CDR Health Association and M/s.Medi-Card Health Association as detailed in the statement of imputation knowing fully well that such policies are against the guidelines of the Head Office and paved the way for the Private Health Associations to have a pecuniary advantage of Rs.91,10,136/- and corresponding loss to the company and thus showed undue official favour to the private Health Associations.” On 26.02.1997, the petitioner submitted his explanation. The disciplinary authority having been not satisfied with the said explanation, appointed an Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer after conducting an enquiry submitted a report on 14.06.2000. The copy of the Enquiry Report was furnished to the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer found that certain charges leveled against the petitioner were proved and some other charges failed. The Disciplinary Authority not agreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, found that all the charges leveled against the petitioner are proved and then passed the impugned orders and imposed penalty of reduction of lower post i.e., Administrative Officer, by fixing his basic salary at Rs.14,015/- applicable scale of pay to the “Administrative Officer” by proceedings No.H.O.96078:32:2001, dated 30.03.2001. Then the petitioner filed W.P.No.6404 of 2001 before this Court and the same was disposed of on 09.04.2001 directing the petitioner to file an appeal within four weeks and directed the authorities to consider the same and pass appropriate order and aggrieved by the same, he preferred an appeal before the second respondent. The second respondent however, dismissed the appeal by order, dated 04.05.2001. Challenging the orders passed by the second respondent, this writ petition has been filed. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order passed by the second respondent is illegal and that the findings with regard to the charge of tailor made policy issued to Medi-Save Health Association on any circular/instruction of the Head Office, which he has violated while issuing endorsements, increasing/enlarging the scope of the policy and altering the policy. It is also stated that their evidence was not properly appreciated by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The respondents filed counter. The main contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that the petitioner has not exhausted the alternative remedy available to him under the Rules. Rule 40 of the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1975 provides for a Memorial to be submitted to the Chairman/Chairman-cum-Managing Director, if the appeal under these Rules has been rejected by the Appellate Authority. This fact, however, is not denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Thus, it appears that the petitioner has not exhausted the alternative remedy available to him. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to prefer a Memorial to the Chairman/Managing Director and on submission of such Memorial to the Chairman/Managing Director within a period of six weeks from today, the Chairman/Managing Director i.e., the first respondent shall consider the same on merits. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ___________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR J., Dt.02.12.2010 tjs