REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4149 of 2022 
Dr. Gajendra Singh             ...Appellant 
Versus  
Union of India & Ors.                           
...Respondents
J U D G M E N T 
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
1

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   1995­96.     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
charge­sheet 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
2

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 not send
the   premium   amount.     Instead,   the   insured   applied   for
another   insurance   policy   for   which   a   cheque   was   given,
however   the   cheque   bounced.     Therefore,   it   was   the   case   on
behalf   of   the   appellant   that   having   long   standing   relations
between   the   insured   and   the   insurance   company,   he   relied
upon the assurance given by the insured that he will send the
amount and, on that assurance, he issued the first cover note.
In   the   departmental   enquiry   the   charge   levelled   against   the
appellant came to be proved.  The enquiry report was accepted
by the disciplinary authority.  Therefore, the appellant came to
be removed from service however without any disqualification
of a future employment.  The appellant challenged the order of
removal   before   the   learned   Single   Judge.     The   learned   Single
3

Judge   dismissed   the   writ   petition.     The   judgment   and   order
passed   by   the   learned   Single   Judge   dismissing   the   writ
petition   has   been   confirmed   by   the   impugned   judgment   and
order passed by the Division Bench.
3. Having   heard   learned   counsel   for   the   respective   parties
and   considering   the   reply   to   the   charge­sheet   and   the
plausible   explanation   given   by   the   appellant   –   delinquent
officer, we are of the opinion that the order of removal passed
by   the   disciplinary   authority   against   the   appellant   who   had
rendered   approximately   over   twenty   years   of   service   and   the
fact   that   the   appellant   had   an   unblemished   service   record
throughout,   we   are   of   the   opinion   that   the   punishment   of
removal from service is disproportionate to the charge and the
misconduct   held   to   be   proved.     It   appears   that   the   insured
was   an   old   customer   and   the   insured   and   the   insurer
company   had   a   long­standing   relationship   with   him.     The
petitioner relied upon the assurance given by the insured that
he   will   send   the   money   and   on   that   assurance   the   appellant
issued  the  first  cover  note.     However,  at  the   same  time  when
the   second   cover  was   issued   with   respect  to   the   very   vehicle,
4

the   appellant   was   required   to   cancel   the   earlier   cover   note
which the appellant did not cancel, which has resulted in loss
to   the   insurance   company.     However,   at   the   same   time   it
cannot be said that the appellant failed to maintain integrity.
Therefore,   this   is   a   fit   case   to   impose   any   other   punishment
lesser/other than the removal from service.
4. In   view   of   the   above   and   for   the   reason   stated   above
present   Appeal   Succeeds   in   Part.     The   impugned   judgment
and orders passed by the High Court are hereby quashed and
set   aside.     The   order   of   punishment   imposed   by   the
disciplinary   authority   removing   the   appellant   from   service   is
hereby   quashed   and   set   aside   and   the   matter   is   remitted   to
the   disciplinary   authority   to   impose   any   other   appropriate
punishment   lesser/other   than   the   order   of   removal   from
service.     The   aforesaid   exercise   shall   be   completed   within   a
period of three months from the date of present order.
5

Present   appeal   is   partly   allowed   to   the   aforesaid   extent.
However,   in   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case   there
shall be no order as to costs.
…………………………………J.
             (M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
                                                 (B.V. NAGARATHNA)
New Delhi, 
July 11, 2022.
6