Tapen Sen, J.@mdashThe Petitioner, Siba Prasad Chakraborty has come to this Court with a prayer that the Respondents be forbidden to proceed with the Charge-sheet dated 15.12.2005; the Order of punishment dated 04.09.2009 and the Order dated 25.3.2010 rejecting the Appeal. The Petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the said Charge-sheet and the Orders with a further prayer that the Respondents be directed to disburse the arrears of salary and other service 2 benefits to him without giving effect to the Order of punishment dated 4.9.2009. The Petitioner has also prayed for an Order Commanding upon the Respondents to release and disburse the stagnation increments which were due to the Petitioner in the years 2006-2009 and then, to consider his case for promotion in accordance with law.
2. The case of the Petitioner, as per pleadings, is that he was transferred to Division- XIII under the then Eastern Regional Office, Kolkata, National Insurance Company Limited as an Assistant (Typist). He was again transferred in 1984 in the same capacity to the Bidhannagar Branch and from there, to the Sealdah Branch as an Assistant (Clerk) in the year 1988. He was promoted in 1991 to the post of a Senior Assistant and posted at the Sealdah Branch and in 1998, he was transferred to the Kolkata Regional Office-I; 8, India Exchange Place, Kolkata-700001 as a Senior Assistant.
The Petitioner is married to Mrs. Bulbul Chakraborty, who is self employed and has been carrying on business in soft toys under the name and style of M/s. S. S. Enterprise. According to the Petitioner, the said business, at present, is running at a loss.
In connection with her own business, Mrs. Bulbul Chakraborty had several Marine Transit Insurance Policies through Division-IX of the said National Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the said Company). These Insurance Policies were in her individual capacity. During the period 1999 to 2000, some Claims were lodged on her behalf and they were against Policies taken by her in the name of S. S. Enterprise. The said Claims 3 were settled by Division-IX of the Company by 3 (three) Cheques being Cheque No. 3929750 dated 13.3.2000 issued in favour of Mrs. Bulbul Chakraborty for a sum of Rs. 42,150/-; Cheque No. 185305 dated 22.2.1999 issued in favour of M/s. S. S. Enterprise for a sum of Rs. 38,875/- and Cheque No. 392730 dated 01.03.2000 in favour of M/s. S. S. Enterprise for a sum of Rs. 38, 000/-.
The Petitioner received the said Cheques for and on behalf of the insured i.e. his wife Mrs. Bulbul Chakraborty and/or the Firm of his wife namely M/s. S.S. Enterprise from the concerned Office of Division-IX of the Company and deposited them in the Bank Account of his wife and his wife''s Firm being M/s. S. S. Enterprise with Canara Bank, Canning Street Branch. At no point of time, the wife of the Petitioner lodged any protest with Division-IX alleging non receipt of the amounts or that the Petitioner was not authorised by her to receive the said Cheques on her behalf.
It is the further case of the Petitioner that he acted as a representative of his wife for merely receiving the Cheques on her behalf and did not act in the capacity of an employee of the Company and that he was never transferred to Division-IX and also never worked, even for a temporary period or under any stop-gap measure or arrangement in the said Division-IX Office at any point of time during his entire service period. These have been stated in Paras-7 and 10 of the Writ Petition.
3. However, on 15.12.2005, he was surprised to receive a Memorandum proposing to initiate Disciplinary Proceedings for imposing major penalty in terms of Rule 25 of the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline & 4 Appeal) Rules, 1975 on the allegation that he had failed to discharge his duties with utmost integrity and had acted in a manner unbecoming of a public servant thereby contravening Rule 3 (I), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of the said Discipline and Appeal Rules and had thus committed a grave misconduct punishable under the provisions of Rule 4 (i) (v) and 21 of the said Rules.
4. Upon a perusal of the Charge-sheet and the Statements of Article of Charges, it is evident that the allegations were that the Petitioners showed lack of devotion and duty and failed to maintain absolute integrity because he had received the Cheques mentioned above by impersonating himself as Bulbul Chakraborty, Proprietor of Mrs. S.S. Enterprise as recipient of the Cheques on the Receipt Vouchers.
The said Cheques were subsequently withdrawn by the Account holder. Thus, according to the allegations, the Petitioner had acted in a manner unbecoming of a public servant and had therefore committed the misconducts stated above. Article 2 of the said Charge-sheet contained the Statements of Imputations of Misconduct in support of the Articles of Charges and they were, that one D.K. Lahiri, the then Assistant Administrative Officer of Division-IX had prepared Bogus Disbursement Claim Voucher No. 24101 against Claim No. 61/97-98/127 in favour of Bulbul Chakraborty for a sum of Rs. 42,150/- and Voucher No. 20704 in respect of Claim No. 61/99-00/85 in favour of M/s. S.S. Enterprise for a sum of Rs. 38,875/- and Voucher No. 23924 in respect of Claim No. 61/98-99/458 in favour of M/s. S.S. Enterprise for a sum of Rs. 38,150/-.
On the basis of such fake Disbursement Vouchers, Cheque No. 392750 dated 13.3.2000 for a sum of Rs. 42,150/-; Cheque No. 185305 dated 22.2.1999 for a sum of Rs. 38,875/- and Cheque No. 392730 dated 1.3.2000 for a sum of Rs. 38,150/- were prepared.
These Cheques were received by the Petitioner who had also signed on the Receipt Vouchers impersonating himself as Bulbul Chakraborty as the recipient of the said Cheques. The said Cheques were subsequently encashed and withdrawn by Mrs. Bulbul Chakraborty through Bank A/c No. 28121 maintained in her name and one Dalia Chakraborty and Current A/c No. 11303 of M/s. S. S. Enterprise. No Policies were standing in the name of the beneficiaries in respect of these Claims of Division-IX and these Cheques, Disbursement Claims Vouchers were not signed by the competent authority and no Claims in respect of these three Cheques ever existed with Division-IX.
5. In Para-12 of the Writ Petition, the Petitioner has stated that although the allegations of fake Claims and issuance of Cheques against non-existing Policies were false but under no circumstances can the Petitioner be proceeded with Departmentally in connection with the settlement of the Claims and the issuance of the Cheques by Division-IX of the Company as he was never attached to the said Division. Merely because he simply received the Cheques for and on behalf of the Insured i.e. his wife, does not mean that he received them in the discharge of or in relation to any of his official functions.
6. According to the Petitioner, the allegations of failure to discharge his duties with utmost integrity is therefore frivolous and on the basis of such allegations, no Disciplinary Proceedings were warranted.
In para-14, the Petitioner has stated that Criminal Proceedings were initiated against the same Officers of the Company who were attached to its Division-IX Office. The CBI was investigating the matter when the Charge-sheet was issued and till date, the Criminal case is pending and the competent Criminal Court is yet to convict any person in the said case.
7. In reply to the Charge-sheet, the Petitioner wrote a letter on 31.1.2006 (vide Annexure-P/2) wherein he categorically denied and disputed each of the Charges and stated that each of the Cheques were A/c Payee Cheques which were received by him on behalf of his wife and these Cheques had been duly credited in the proper account and therefore putting his signature cannot be termed as "impersonation." It is his further defence that the fake Claims and their settlement related to the period 1999-00 whereas the Charge sheet was issued on 15.12.2005. The Disciplinary authority had appointed one Chief Manager as Enquiry Officer and thereafter the Proceedings continued and finally, the Order of Punishment was passed on 4.9.2009 (vide Annexure-P/7) whereby and where under, the Manager-cum-competent authority passed the Order of "Reduction of Basic Pay to the minimum of Senior Assistant Scale" against the Petitioner. The Petitioner filed an Appeal before the competent authority which was rejected by the Regional Manager-cum-Appellate Authority by his Order dated 25.3.2010 as contained in Annexure-P/12.
8. The defence of the Petitioner as has been submitted by the learned Counsel for him is that Bulbul Chakraborty is admittedly his wife and he had merely received the Cheques on her behalf. There is no complaint from his wife till date that she had not received the amounts or that she had not authorised her husband to collect/receive the Cheques. Under such circumstances, learned Counsel has attempted to argue that the Petitioner is totally innocent and that he cannot be charged for receiving the Cheques on behalf of his wife and that therefore, there cannot be any charge of impersonation qua Bulbul Chakraborty.
However, upon a perusal of the Imputation of Misconducts in support of the Articles of Charges, this Court notices that the allegations were preparation of fake Disbursement Claim Vouchers/fake Disbursement Vouchers for which Criminal cases were initiated. What is also important is that the Statement of Imputations also point out that no Policies were standing in the name of the beneficiary with Division-IX and that these fake Disbursement Claim Vouchers were not even signed by the competent authority and that no Claims filed in respect of these Cheques ever existed with Division-IX. The Statement of the Articles of Charges also stated that the Petitioner had received the Cheques against those self-same Claim Vouchers which were all fake.
Under such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the scope of judicial review under Article 226 in this Case cannot be exercised inasmuch as these are serious questions of fact. Findings have already been 8 arrived at in a Disciplinary Proceeding and then punishments have been inflicted on that basis and therefore, at this stage, the High Court will not act as an Appellate Authority. Reference in this context may be made to the case of
Under the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned Orders do not call for any interference by this Court. The Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no Order as to costs.
Upon appropriate Application(s) being made, urgent Xerox Certified copy of this Judgment, may be given/issued expeditiously subject to usual terms and conditions.
