High Court Quashes Removal Order Against Employee Due to Lack of Inquiry. The removal was declared invalid as it was executed without a proper departmental inquiry, violating the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 3
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The writ petition was filed by the petitioner seeking to quash several orders related to his removal from service by the National Insurance Company Ltd. The petitioner had served the company for 36 years in various capacities and faced health issues that led to his prolonged absence from work. He was subjected to multiple transfers which he found detrimental to his health. Following a series of inquiries and penalties imposed for alleged misconduct, including unauthorized absence, the petitioner was ultimately removed from service without a proper inquiry. The petitioner contended that the removal was illegal as it violated the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975, which require a departmental inquiry before imposing such a major penalty. The respondents argued that the petitioner had abandoned his post and that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted lawfully. The court analyzed the procedural requirements under the 1975 Rules and found that the removal order was issued without the necessary inquiry and without recording reasons for bypassing the inquiry process. The court emphasized that the invocation of Rule 30(ii) was insufficient as the authority failed to provide objective reasons for not conducting an inquiry. Consequently, the court quashed the removal order and directed the respondents to follow due process in any future disciplinary actions.

Headnote

A) Employment Law - Removal from Service - Validity of Removal - General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975, Rule 30 - The court held that the removal order was invalid as it was passed without conducting a departmental inquiry, violating principles of natural justice and the mandatory procedure outlined in the 1975 Rules (Paras 42-49).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the removal of the petitioner from service was valid in the absence of a proper departmental inquiry.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court quashed the removal order dated 8th April 2013, ruling it invalid due to the absence of a proper departmental inquiry and violation of the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975.

Law Points

  • natural justice
  • departmental inquiry
  • major penalty
  • General Insurance (Conduct
  • Discipline and Appeal) Rules
  • 1975
  • Article 311 of the Constitution of India
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (BOM) (10) 67

Writ Petition No. 3259 of 2018

2026-10-09

R. I. Chagla, Firdosh P. Pooniwalla

Rishi Ashok, Amogh Patkar, Vipul Shukla, S. Shenoy

Charanjit Singh Bright

National Insurance Company Ltd.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging the removal from service.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought to quash the removal order and related penalties.

Filing Reason

Petitioner claimed removal was illegal due to lack of inquiry.

Previous Decisions

Petitioner had faced multiple penalties and appeals prior to the writ petition.

Issues

Validity of removal order without inquiry Compliance with disciplinary procedures

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that removal was illegal due to lack of inquiry and violation of natural justice. Respondents contended that the petitioner abandoned his post and that disciplinary actions were justified.

Ratio Decidendi

The court emphasized the necessity of conducting a departmental inquiry before imposing major penalties, as mandated by the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975, and the principles of natural justice.

Judgment Excerpts

The Order dated 8 th April 2013 has been passed admittedly without giving any Notice or hearing to the Petitioner. The requirement of recording reasons is mandatory and is not an empty formality. Mere invocation of Rule 30(ii), without recording the requisite satisfaction founded on objective material, is fully insufficient in law and vitiates the impugned Order.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed a writ petition after exhausting internal appeals against the removal order, which was issued without a proper inquiry.

Acts & Sections

  • General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules: Rule 23, Rule 25, Rule 30
  • Constitution of India: Article 311
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition for Counting Past Contractual Service as Qualifying Service for Pensionary Benefits. Petitioner's service as Gramsevak on contractual basis prior to regular appointment as Senior Assistant is directed to be coun...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Husband's Appeal in Divorce Case, Setting Aside High Court's Dismissal of Adultery Claim. Circumstantial Evidence of Wife and Co-Respondent Staying Together Under Assumed Name in Hotel Proved Adultery Under Section 14 of Divorce ...