DR. GAJENDRA SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 7 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 11-07-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
DR. GAJENDRA SINGH
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4149 of 2022)
JULY 11, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Service Law – Disciplinary action – Punishment lesser/other
than removal from service – The appellant, Branch Manager of
Insurance Company, issued a Insurance cover note with respect to
the vehicle without taking any premium – A second cover note was
also issued with respect to the same vehicle – The vehicle met with
an accident relating to which a claim was filed on the basis of the
first cover note – Claim was accepted by the company – Thereafter,
appellant was removed from the service based on the report submitted
by the disciplinary authority – It was alleged by the authority that
the appellant had failed to maintain integrity, devotion to duty and
acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the company – Writ
petition dismissed by the High Court – On appeal, held: Appellant
had an unblemished service record throughout – It appears that the
insured was an old customer and the insured and the insurer company
had a long-standing relationship with him – The appellant relied
upon the assurance  given by  the insured that he will send the
money and issued the first cover note – However, when the second
cover was issued with respect to the very same vehicle, the appellant
was required to cancel the earlier cover note which the appellant
did not cancel, which resulted in loss to the insurance company – It
cannot be said that the appellant failed to maintain integrity – The
punishment of removal from service is disproportionate to the charge
and the misconduct  held  to  be  proved – Therefore, it is a fit case
to impose any other punishment lesser/other than the removal from
service.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4149
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.02.2017 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ A. No.64492 of 2008.
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 1
1
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
Tripurari Ray, Balwant Singh Billowria, Nithyananda Murthy P.,
Ms. Bhanu Prabha, Laxmi Narayan Sharma, Suresh Kumar Sharma,
Anirudh Ray, Vishnu Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant.
Shyam Gopal, Ms. Suhashini Sen, Chinmayee Chandra, Siddhant
Kohli, Raj Bahadur Yadav, Mohit Paul, Vineet Malhotra, Vishal Gohri,
Bikram Dwivedi, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Judgment
and Order 14.02.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad in Writ Appeal No.64492 of 2008 by which the High Court
has dismissed the said appeal and has not interfered with the judgment
and order passed by the learned Single Judge in which the petitioner
challenged the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority of “removal
from service which would not be disqualification for future employment”,
the original petitioner has preferred the present appeal.
2. The appellant herein was a Branch Manager of the United
Insurance Company during the period 1995-96. He issued an Insurance
Cover Note No.543675 on 20.03.1996 with respect to the vehicle bearing
no.DL 1P 7143 belonging to one Chander Singh for the period 20.03.1996
to 19.03.1997. On that very day, he issued another cover note. It was
found that for the first cover note No.543675, he had not taken any
premium and for the second Cover Note No.543680 a cheque given by
the insured had bounced. The vehicle insured met with an accident on
20.04.1996 relating to which a claim was filed on the basis of the first
insurance Cover Note No.543675. An award of Rs.3,24,400/- came to
be passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Tribunal. The Insurance
Company accepted the same. However, the disciplinary authority issued
a charge-sheet to the appellant on 18.10.2001 alleging that the appellant
had issued a Cover Note No.543675 without collecting any premium, he
had thus caused a financial loss to the insurance company. Therefore, it
was alleged that the appellant had failed to maintain integrity, devotion to
duty and acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of company. The
charges were replied to by the appellant. He explained the circumstances
under which he had issued the first cover note as at the relevant time
when the cover note was issued, he had relied upon the assurance given
by the insured that he will send the amount through his person, but he did
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
3
not send the premium amount. Instead, the insured ap

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.