Case: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. &amp; Another Vs. Gokulprasad Maniklal Agarwal &amp; Another

ad Maniklal Agarwal was working as an Assistant Administrative Officer with the Appellant insurance company. He challenged initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him by the appellant by filing Writ Petition No. 2128/84 in the High Court of Bombay. While the departmental proceedings were pending a promotion list for the Western Zone for promotion to the post of Administrative Officer was published by the appellant on 8.2.1988. The respondents name appeared at serial No. 1. Instead of promoting him, by letter dated 22.2.1988, the respondent was informed by the appellant that as the disciplinary proceedings were pending against him his promotion to the rank of Administrative Officer has been kept in abeyance till the result of the enquiry.4. The disciplinary proceedings ended with an order dated 19.11.1993 whereby the respondent was awarded penalty of reduction in basic pay by one stage in the time scale of pay on permanent basis. The respondent feeling aggrieved by the letter dated 22.2.1988 and the order of punishment dated 19.11.1993, amended the Writ Petition and challenged the said letter and order also. The High Court considered the punishment imposed upon the respondent as a minor penalty and held that imposition of such a minor penalty could not come in the way of promotion. Taking this view the High Court allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the letter/decision dated 22.2.1988.5. The appellant then filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 3413 of 1998, in this Court. It was withdrawn as the appellant wanted to file a Review Petition before the High Court. The appellant, thereafter, did approach the High Court by way of a Review Petition but the same was dismissed on the ground that there was no error apparent on the face of the record. Aggrieved by both the orders of the High Court, the appellant has filed these appeals. The respondent though served has not thought it fit to appear.What is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the punishment imposed upon the respondent was a major penalty and not a minor penalty. He submitted that it was a mistake on the part of the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company to have conceded before the High Court that it was a minor penalty. He further submitted that this error has vitiated the order passed by the High Court.

Reasoning:
8. In our opinion the High Court was not right in setting aside the decision of the appellant as contained in the letter dated 22.2.1988 and allowing the petition filed by the respondent.