SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- G.B. Pattanaik and B.N. Agrawal, JJ.

C.A. No. 199 of 1997. D/d. 14.11.2000.

Ajit Jain - Appellant

Versus

National Insurance Company Ltd. and others - Respondents

Departmental Enquiry - Dismissal - Infirmity in departmental enquiry vitiates order of injuntion of punishment of dismissal - However, in view of peculiar circumstance compensation of six lakhs directed to be paid.

[Paras 2 and 3]

Cases Referred :-

Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra, 1998(3) SCT 833 (SC).

ORDER

G.B. Pattanaik, J. - The appellant is an employee under National Insurance Company Ltd. He joined service in the year 1977 and was placed under suspension on March 28, 1984 in view of certain charges levelled against him. A regular departmental proceeding was then initiated and finally he was dismissed from service on July 21, 1989. He preferred an appeal against the said dismissal and that appeal having been dismissed, he filed a writ petition which was also dismissed by the learned single Judge. Against the same, he preferred a special appeal before the Divisional Bench, but the same having been dismissed, the appellant has approached this Court.

2. Mr. Bahuguna, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant contended that in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra, 1998(3) SCT 833 (SC) : AIR 1998 Supreme Court 2713 : 1998(7) SCC 84 : 1998-II-LLJ-809, the impugned order of dismissal cannot be sustained though Mr. Subramanium, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, vehemently contended that in the present case, there is no infirmity with the impugned order of dismissal. Having examined the rival contentions we are persuaded to agree with the submissions of Mr. Bahuguna appearing for the appellant and, therefore, the infirmity that has crept in the departmental proceeding would vitiate the order of infliction of punishment of dismissal. Necessarily, therefore, the Court would be in a position to set aside the order of dismissal and direct that the inquiry proceeding be relegated to the stage where the infirmity had already crept in. It transpires that in the meantime the appellant has been paralysed and is not in a position to take up the employment and cannot serve the Insurance Company.

3. It is because of this physical condition of the appellant which disentitles him to join the service, we thought it fit to dispose of this matter by directing the employer Insurance Company to pay compensation in terms of final settlement of all the dues of the appellant and the relationship of master and servant would cease on payment of such compensation. Having regard to the salary which the appellant was drawing and the years of service he has already rendered and having regard to the fact that the appellant has already spent a substantial sum of money in undertaking the treatment, we think it appropriate that the amount of compensation of Rs. 6,00,000 would be just and fair and we accordingly direct that the respondent would pay a sum of Rs. 6,00,000 (Rupees six lakhs) only to the appellant by way of a bank draft within six weeks from today and on such payment all claims of the appellant would stand satisfied and the relationship of master and servant would cease.

This appeal accordingly stands disposed of.

Appeal disposed of.