Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. In the context of the aforesaid facts, major penalty proceedings under Rule 25 of the General Insurance [Conduct, Discipline and Appeal] Rules, 1975, were initiated by the respondent against the petitioner. A memorandum was issued on 02.08.2002, and the accompanying articles of charge mentioned that the petitioner dishonestly and with malafide intention, issued the cover note in backdate, whereas he deposited office copies of the cover note by overwriting the dates, and that the respondent had to bear a loss on account of compensation awarded by MACT as a result of "fraudulent action" of the petitioner. The statement of imputation of misconduct records the facts narrated above, including the allegation that the petitioner had represented that he had issued the cover note after physical inspection of the vehicle, whereas the vehicle in question was under police custody following an accident on 10.05.1994, and was not available for physical inspection.

18. Mr. Rahul Ranjan Verma, learned counsel for the respondent, however, makes the following submissions:

a) The charges against the petitioner have been duly established, including the charge of deliberate backdating of a cover note. The cover note was, in fact, issued three days after the accident in question, whereas it was backdated by approximately one month, so that the date of accident falls within period of insurance. In these circumstances, the charge against the petitioner is not just of dereliction of duty, but of breach of integrity. The overwriting in the office copies of the cover note has been admitted by the petitioner.