Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: 9 October 2026 (pronounced) – Reserved on 29 August 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: petitioner Charanjit Singh Bright (Writ Petition No. 3259 of 2018) vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. (Respondent No. 1) and another respondent.
  • Petitioner's Reliefs: (a) quash Inquiry Orders dated 1 April 2009 and 30 November 2009; (b) quash the 8 April 2013 termination order and direct payment of back wages and retirement benefits with 18% interest; (c) release Provident Fund dues with interest per trust rules; (d) pay pension arrears; (e) interim reliefs; (f) set aside the 5 June 2017 Appellate Authority order; (g) any other relief deemed fit.
  • Service Background: Joined National Insurance as Development Officer, Grade II; served ~36 years in Mumbai, Pune, and Pimpri offices. Suffered multiple serious health conditions (ischemic heart disease, hypertension, obesity, degenerative spinal disease, sleep apnea, kidney issues, etc.) and underwent knee surgery.
  • Transfer History: 2005 transferred from Mumbai to Vapi, then to Pune, then after 15 days to Pimpri. Repeated requests for transfer to Mumbai on medical grounds were ignored.
  • Medical Incident (2006): Fainted at Pimpri, received first‑aid, was taken to LTMJ Hospital, then shifted to a Mumbai hospital for advanced care.
  • Disciplinary Proceedings:
  • Charge Sheet (10 July 2007): alleged collusion in forged claim and signing a cheque of Rs 79,000 in favour of Popular Car Bazaar.
  • Inquiry Report: retired ACP visited petitioner in Mumbai, found him bedridden, submitted report (not disclosed by employer).
  • Order dated 1 April 2009: penalty – reduction in basic pay by 2 stages.
  • Second Charge Sheet (23 August 2008 request): petitioner sought Mumbai‑based inquiry; employer proceeded ex‑parte.
  • Order dated 13 November 2009: penalty – reduction in basic pay by 4 stages.
  • Order dated 8 April 2013: termination (removal from service, not disqualifying future employment) alleging >600 days unauthorised absence from 2008 onward; no notice or hearing.
  • Appeal: petitioner appealed; Appellate Authority ordered respondents to decide pending appeal (4 May 2017). Petitioner's letter (31 May 2017) sought decision; Appellate Authority rejected appeal on 5 June 2017.
  • Petitioner’s Submissions: argued removal order illegal for bypassing departmental inquiry required under General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975; invoked Articles 14, 21, 311(2) of Constitution; cited Supreme Court judgments (Tulsiram Patel, Jaswant Singh, Chief Security Officer, Manohar Lal) emphasizing need for written reasons when dispensing with inquiry under Rule 30(ii).
  • Respondents’ Submissions: claimed petition is a private contract dispute, alleged petitioner’s unauthorised absence (437 days March 2006‑Dec 2007, further 600 days Jan 2008‑Apr 2013) amounted to abandonment; highlighted alleged defaults on housing loan (Rs 6,51,727) and vehicle loan (Rs 4,48,441) and civil suits filed; asserted transfers were at petitioner’s request and not hardship.
  • Court’s Analysis:
  • Focused on Orders dated 8 April 2013 and 5 June 2017 (earlier 2009 orders not entertained due to delay).
  • Found removal order passed without notice or hearing, violating Rule 25 and Rule 30(ii) – no written reasons recorded, making the order void.
  • Determined that medical‑induced absence does not satisfy the definition of “abandonment” under Rule 30(iv); abandonment requires clear intention to sever employment, which was absent.
  • Cited Supreme Court precedents establishing that dispensing with inquiry requires objective material and cannot rely on ipse‑dixit.
  • Concluded both the 8 April 2013 removal order and the 5 June 2017 appellate order lack valid justification and must be set aside.

Final Outcome

  • Orders dated 8 April 2013 and 5 June 2017 are quashed and set aside.
  • Respondents directed to pay back wages for periods when petitioner actually worked (excluding leave periods).
  • Respondents directed to release all retirement benefits, including pension, with simple interest at 9% per annum from the date of superannuation to payment.
  • Respondents directed to release Provident Fund dues with simple interest at 9% per annum from the date of superannuation to payment, as per trust rules.
  • No order as to costs.

Topics: Employment Law, Service Discipline, Judicial Review