Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Hemraj s/o Budha Raut, a Branch Manager of National Insurance Company Ltd., filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the concurrent disciplinary orders passed by the respondent authorities. The disciplinary authority (Assistant General Manager) imposed a punishment of stoppage of three increments in the basic pay for improper supervision, which was upheld by the appellate authority (General Manager) and the competent authority (Chairman-cum-Managing Director). The petitioner sought to quash the chargesheet dated 03/09/2002, the disciplinary order dated 20/07/2004, the appellate order dated 04/01/2005, and the revisional order dated 25/04/2006. The court heard both parties and considered the scope of judicial review under Article 226. It held that the High Court cannot act as an appellate forum and has limited jurisdiction to interfere with domestic enquiries unless there is perversity or breach of substantive provisions. Since the authorities had considered the material on record and provided a hearing, and there was no such perversity or breach, the court declined to interfere. The submission regarding the retrospectivity of Rule 18 of the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2000 was also not accepted. The writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Judicial Review under Article 226 - Scope - High Court cannot act as an appellate forum and has limited jurisdiction to interfere with domestic enquiry/orders unless there is perversity or breach of substantive provisions - Held that concurrent findings based on material on record and after hearing the petitioner do not warrant interference (Paras 2-3).
B) Service Law - General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2000 - Rule 18 - Retrospectivity - Submission regarding retrospectivity of Rule 18 was considered but not accepted by the court - Held that the court declined to accept the petitioner's prayer (Para 3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should interfere with concurrent disciplinary orders passed by the respondent authorities imposing punishment of stoppage of three increments for improper supervision.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The court declined to interfere with the concurrent disciplinary orders as there was no perversity or breach of substantive provisions.
Law Points
- Scope of judicial review under Article 226
- limited interference with domestic enquiry
- concurrent findings
- retrospectivity of service rules
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (01) 149
WRIT PETITION NO. 3092 OF 2006
Anoop V. Mohta, A. R. Joshi
Mr. Y.R.Sonkusare for petitioner, Mr. D.N.Kukday for respondents
National Insurance Company Ltd. through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Chairman-cum-Managing Director & Competent Authority, General Manager & Appellate Authority, Asst. General Manager & Disciplinary Authority
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging disciplinary orders passed by the respondent insurance company.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to quash and set aside the chargesheet dated 03/09/2002, disciplinary order dated 20/07/2004, appellate order dated 04/01/2005, and revisional order dated 25/04/2006.
Filing Reason
Petitioner was found guilty of improper supervision as Branch Manager and was awarded minimum punishment of stoppage of three increments in basic pay.
Previous Decisions
Disciplinary Authority (Assistant General Manager) passed order on 20/07/2004; Appellate Authority (General Manager) passed order on 04/01/2005; Competent Authority (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) passed order on 25/04/2006.
Issues
Whether the High Court under Article 226 should interfere with concurrent disciplinary orders in the absence of perversity or breach of substantive provisions.
Whether Rule 18 of the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2000 applies retrospectively.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the disciplinary orders were liable to be quashed, possibly on grounds of retrospectivity of Rule 18.
Respondents supported the concurrent findings and argued that the court should not interfere under Article 226.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court under Article 226 has limited jurisdiction to interfere with domestic enquiries/orders of private bodies. It cannot act as an appellate forum and will not interfere unless there is perversity or breach of substantive provisions going to the root of the matter. Concurrent findings based on material on record and after hearing the petitioner do not warrant interference.
Judgment Excerpts
the High Court cannot act as an Appellate Forum and has limited jurisdiction to interfere with such domestic enquiry/orders so passed, specifically when there is no case of perversity and a breach of any substantive provisions which goes to the root to interfere with such concurrent findings, we are declined to accept the petitioner's prayer.
Procedural History
The petitioner was issued a chargesheet on 03/09/2002. The Disciplinary Authority (Assistant General Manager) passed an order on 20/07/2004 imposing punishment of stoppage of three increments. The petitioner appealed to the General Manager & Appellate Authority, who dismissed the appeal on 04/01/2005. The petitioner then filed a revision before the Chairman-cum-Managing Director & Competent Authority, who rejected it on 25/04/2006. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
- General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2000: Rule 18
