Subhash Chand Gupta v. United India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Ravi Kapoor, Advocate for the appellant. ***** RANJIT SINGH J. The appellant, an Inspector Grade-I in United India Insurance Company, has filed this Regular Second Appeal to impugn the order of his removal. The allegation made against he appellant was that while serving the insurance company, he had issued a insurance cover note in favour of Mr. H.L. Soni, Advocate which he antedated to enable said Mr. Soni to claim the damages of his car which met with an accident on 03.10.1979. The appellant was charge sheeted. The inquiry was held against the appellant and order removing him from service was passed on 18.5.1982. His appeal against the said order was dismissed on 9.8.1982. Thereafter, he filed his memorial to the highest functionaries of the Company which was also dismissed on

3.5.1983. The appellant, accordingly, filed the suit to challenge the Regular Second Appeal No. 752 of 1989 2 impugned order of his removal. It appears that the appellant subsequently amended the plaint to challenge the appellate order dated 9.8.1982, on the plea he was not given opportunity to defend himself in inquiry and the evidence led by the management did not prove the charge of misconduct. The appellant also made an allegation of bias against the inquiry officer. The respondent controverted the pleas of the appellant. It was stated that there was no flaw in the conduct of the inquiry and the finding of the inquiry officer was based on material. Respondent refuted on the allegations of bias. Objection also was that the suit was not maintainable. In the absence of challenge to the order of removal, which merged with the appellate order, the plea of suit being barred by limitation was also raised. It is also stated that by filing the suit, the appellant had sought to enforce the contract of personal service for which the Court would have no jurisdiction. The objection about limitation, jurisdiction of the civil Court and about the misjoinder of the parties were not pressed. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The appellant challenged the cryptic finding of the trial Court before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court also upheld the finding of the trial Court and had dismissed the suit. The appellant has accordingly filed the present Regular Second Appeal. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant prayed for adjournment, which was declined. Counsel, thereafter, has taken me through the impugned judgment and then has read the grounds of appeal and accordingly has made the following submissions for my consideration. Regular Second Appeal No. 752 of 1989 3 The counsel would first submit that it is a case of no evidence and hence the finding against the appellant cannot be allowed to sustain. The counsel would thus contend that his case was prejudiced by holding an inquiry inasmuch as documents were not supplied to him. He would also plead non-application of mind while passing the impugned order, which is termed as cryptic order. Further grievance was that the appellant was not allowed to engage the counsel and was also not allowed to cross examine the witnesses. Counsel would further submit that no personal hearing was afforded to him while passing the impugned order. It is pleaded that the civil suit filed by Mr. Soni was bound to have effect on the finding given by the inquiry officer, where it was found that the cover note had not been antedated as was alleged against the appellant. In this regard, the counsel seeks support from the case of M/s Karammohan Ganga Parshad and another versus Union of India and others AIR 1971 Supreme Court 1244. Except for merely raising these grounds, nothing is pointed out before me from the record to substantiate this plea. Though it is pleaded that it is a case of no evidence, yet the counsel has made reference to the impugned judgment passed by the First Appellate Court laying special emphasis on the observation made at paragraph eight of the judgment. In my view, the First Appellate Court has rightly appreciated the legal submissions and then has discussed the evidence that was available on record. Reference is made to the confession made by the appellant in issuing a cover note in back date, where he had taken the plea that the same was obtained by Regular Second Appeal No. 752 of 1989 4 misrepresentation to the effect by saying that the insurer wanted to save himself from a challan of the car being plied without insurance. It is noticed that Mr. Soni, thereafter, had preferred the claim on the basis of cover note when the fraudulent act on the part of the appellant was detected. Mr. K.R. Arora, who was working as Surveyor was examined as witness before the inquiry proceedings. The statement made by the appellant before the Surveyor was exhibited on record. The surveyor had also examined Mr. Narula, Mr. Kanwar and Mr. Mukheja. Even the Branch Manager was examined as MW1. The Branch Manager clearly deposed that the appellant himself had told him about the bogus claim and the fact that the appellant had issued a cover note on 3.10.1979. As per the evidence, the appellant had pleaded that the claim should be rejected and thereafter he had booked urgent call to Ludhiana and talked to Mr. Kanwar, the official of the appellant-Company. All this and the conversation took place in the presence of two independent witnesses namely, Sh. Brij Sagar and Rabinder Nath. Thus the circumstances as discussed by the inquiry officer, in my view, point to the sufficient evidence available on record to support the finding returned by the inquiry officer. Certainly, this cannot be termed as case of no evidence, especially when viewed in the background, no reference whatsoever is made by the counsel for the appellant in support of this line of submission. Simply stating that some documents were not supplied which led to prejudice to the case of the appellant cannot be accepted. No efforts were made to refer to the record to show which documents were required to be supplied and were not so supplied. Regular Second Appeal No. 752 of 1989 5 Even the order which has been termed as cryptic has not been referred to show how it will indicate non-application of mind. Reference is also not made to any inquiry proceeding to show that the appellant was not permitted to cross examine the witnesses. No provision of the rule is referred to show that there was a need or requirement of affording the personal hearing, which was not granted. The finding of the civil Court given in a civil suit filed by Mr. Soni was cursorily referred to. The submissions on this line were also made before the trial Court as well as before the First Appellate Court. The finding by the inquiry officer in this case is required to be based the evidence led during the enquiry. If some evidence was withheld or was not properly produced in civil Court, which was not between the same parties then it certainly would not bind the finding given by the inquiry officer. The inquiry officer was to give finding on the basis of material that has led before h im. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. May 11, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) JUDGE