IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
REPLY ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT TO THE SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 633 OF 2013 FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
In the Matter under Articles 14, 21, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India;
In the matter under the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975;
In the matter between:
Shri Jayantibhai Maganbhai Parekh
House No. 45,
Amarvihar Shanti Kunj,
Ahmedabad – 392 021
United India Insurance Company Limited
Through Shri S.P. Nanda (Deputy General Manager/Disciplinary Authority) And Shri Datta Yardi (Inquiry Authority)
Regd. & Head Office
P.B. No. 676
24 Whites Road
Chennai – 600 014 …Respondent
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND OTHER HON’BLE COMPANION JUDGES OF THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
THE HUMBLE SUBMISSION OF THE RESPONDENT ABOVE NAMED:
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH THAT:
The Respondent is familiar with the facts and circumstances of the case having dealt with it in its official capacity. The Respondent has read and understood the contents of the writ petition and the reply to it is set as below : Preliminary Objections:
That the Petitioner has evoked the writ jurisdiction of the Hon’ble High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, without exhausting equally efficacious alternative remedy. As a result, it is pleaded that this petition be quashed in light of the following authorities: II.
The Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. v. Bhailal Bhai (AIR 1964 SC 1006), held that the remedy provided in a writ jurisdiction is not intended to supersede completely the modes of obtaining relief by an action in a civil court or to deny defence legitimately open in such actions. In addition, in the case of C.A. Abraham v. Income-tax Officer (AIR 1961 SC 609) and in the case of H.B. Gandhi, Excise and Taxation Officer Cum-Assessing Authority v. Gopi Nath & Sons ( 77 STC 1), the hon’ble apex Court has held that where the hierarchy of appeals is provided by the statute, party must exhaust the statutory remedies before resorting to writ jurisdiction. III.
In the present matter, referring to Rule 31 of the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1975, which reads as follows: ‘every employee shall have a right to appeal to the Appellate Authority against an order imposing upon him any of the penalties specified under Rule 23. An appeal against an order of suspension passed under Rule 20, shall be on the Authority to which the Authority made or is deemed to have made the order of suspension is immediately subordinate. Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule and subject to provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, no appeal shall lie against an order made by the Corporation/ Subsidiary under Rule 20 or 23.’ IV.
Therefore, in light of Rule 31 of the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1975 that allows each employee the right to appeal the decision of the Inquiry Authority, read along with Schedule ‘A’ annexed thereto that provides a hierarchy of the competent appellate authorities, it is submitted that the Petitioner had a right to appeal against the decision of the order of the Inquiry Authority and hence, the Petitioner has not exhausted all possible alternative remedy before exercising the writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble High Court. Merely writing a protest note to the Disciplinary Authority and in the absence of an actual order being passed (reply to protest note dated 22.05.2012 attached herewith and marked as Annexure A), the Petitioner has no adequate grounds to initiate writ proceedings against the Respondent. V.
It is also submitted that no fundamental or constitutional right whatsoever of the Petitioner has been infringed...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document