IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 265 of 2007 (S/B) Vimal Bahuguna S/o Sri Basant Kumar Bahuguna\ Resident of Near Power House, Pauri, Presently posted as Development Officer In the office of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Sri Nagar Garhwal, District Pauri. ...…………. Petitioner Versus 1. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Assistant General Manager Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (competent authority) Thapar Plaza Building, G.T. Road, Ghaziabad. 2. Oriental Insurance Co. through its Deputy Manager Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Thapar Plaza Building, G.T. Road, Ghaziabad. ...…………. Respondents Mr.Vimal Bahuguna, petitioner (in person). Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocate for the respondents. Coram : Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Hon. Prafulla C. Pant, J. (Oral) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 03.12.2003 (copy Annexure –7 to the writ petition), passed by the respondent 2 authorities, whereby the petitioner has been awarded punishment, after departmental enquiry. Also, order dated 09.11.2004, passed by the departmental appellate authority is challenged, whereby the appeal is dismissed. 2) Heard Mr. Vimal Bahuguna, petitioner (appearing in person), and Mr. D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the respondents. 3) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Development Officer with Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (respondent company). He was charge sheeted on 10th of January 2003, on the charge of issuing back dated cover note No. 897440, relating to bus registration No. UP 06 / 3233, in favour of Rajendra Singh Topal, which was received by the branch office of the respondent company on 30th of April 2001. The petitioner’s case is that the renewal of the insurance of aforesaid bus was made on 27.04.2001 w.e.f. 28.04.2001, and the cover note was sent by registered post (on 27.04.2001) to the branch office at Srinagar (Garhwal). The bus bearing registration No. UP 06 / 3233 met with an accident on 30th of April 2001. The respondent company suspected foul hand in the renewal of the policy and issuance of aforesaid cover note, particularly, in view of the fact that another cover note 3 No. 897441 dated 28.04.2001 was submitted by the petitioner by hand in the respondent’s branch on 30th of April 2001. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Rule 25 of the General Insurance (CDA Rule) 1975, and charge sheet (copy Annexure –3 to the writ petition) was served on the petitioner. The enquiry was conducted by Enquiry Officer (Mr. Madan Mohan), who submitted enquiry report dated 13.02.2003 (copy of which is Annexure –4 to the writ petition). Thereafter, a show cause notice was served on the petitioner in response to which the petitioner made representation against the enquiry report. The authority concerned, after considering the same, vide impugned order dated 03.12.2003, awarded the punishment of placing the petitioner in the lowest pay scale payable to the post held by the petitioner, and further a recovery of rupees one lakh was directed to be made from the petitioner. Against this order, the petitioner preferred a departmental appeal, which was decided by the departmental appellate authority vide another impugned order dated 09.11.2004, whereby the appeal was dismissed. Hence, this petition. 4) In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the insurance company it has been stated that the charges were fully proved against the petitioner in the enquiry, and he was given proper opportunity of hearing and 4 adduced evidence. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that by the time when accident took place at 12:45 P.M., on 30th of April 2001, there was no cover note issued for renewal of the insurance relating to the aforesaid bus. Defending the impugned order it is stated that the departmental appeal has also rightly been dismissed by the authority concerned. As to the non payment of salary by the respondents, it is stated that petitioner himself did not accept the salary at the lowest pay scale, and as such, the respondents are not at fault. 5) In the rejoinder affidavit averments made in the writ petition are reiterated. 6) Admittedly, the petitioner is Development Officer with the respondent Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. It is also not disputed that cover note No. 897440 was issued by the petitioner for renewal of the insurance relating to bus registration No. UP 06 / 3233. It is also not disputed that said bus met with an accident on 30th of April 2001 i.e. the date on which the cover note for renewal was received by the branch office of the respondent company. The dispute relates only to the fact whether, the cover note was issued actually on 27.04.2001 for renewal w.e.f. 28.04.2001, or the cover note was back dated, and prepared and submitted only on 30th of April 2001, immediately after the accident? 5 The enquiry report (copy of which is Annexure –4 to the writ petition) clearly shows that the petitioner was given ample opportunity to defend himself, and evidence adduced by both the sides was considered by the Enquiry Officer Mr. Madan Mohan, who was a retired officer of the respondent insurance company. The petitioner’s main defence was that he sent the cover note on 27.04.2001 by registered post, which was received by the branch office on 30th of April 2001. But, after assessing the evidence on record, the Enquiry Officer found that on 30th of April 2001, the petitioner himself was present in the branch office with the insurer, and the subordinate staff employee A.S. Bisht, who took the cover note to the Branch Officer, but could not show the envelope in which said cover note was received by post. The Enquiry Officer was of the view that the petitioner could not show that the postal receipt dated 27.04.2001, relied by him, related to the disputed cover note. 7) Having considered submissions of the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents, we find that the Enquiry Officer has appreciated the evidence on record, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner in the enquiry. In such circumstances, this Court would not like to assess evidence and impose its conclusion, under writ jurisdiction, particularly when the 6 departmental appellate authority has affirmed the order of punishment, passed by the authority concerned. Had it been a case that the petitioner was not given opportunity of hearing, or where the authorities have not followed the rules applicable to the petitioner, this Court could have interfered in the matter. But, in this case, we do not find any such illegality. 8) For the reasons as discussed above, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders, passed by the authorities. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Dharam Veer, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. February 08, 2010. H. Negi 7