MATHEW M. KATTIMATTOM Vs. THE LIC OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is now a Development Officer Grade II in the employment of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, which is the first respondent. He started his career as a teacher. Subsequently he joined the Muthu Provident Insurance Co., Ltd., as a Pro rata Inspector; and he left that company on 31-10-1955. Later he joined the Central Mutual Life Insurance Co. Ltd., wherein he worked up to 30th October, 1956. The Life Insurance Corporation of India was constituted with effect from 1-11-1956, which took over all the Life Insurance business in India. On 25-10-1956, the petitioner made an application for appointment in the Corporation as Pro rata Inspector. He was appointed by order, Ex. R3 dated 20-2-1957, as an Inspector of Agencies under the Kottayam branch with retrospective effect from 1-12-1956. The petitioner was subsequently promoted as per Ex. P31 dated 4-2-1958 as Field Officer with effect from 30-12-1957. He was transferred to Thodupuzha, where he worked from early 1958 till the beginning of 1963. During that period, the volume of his business reduced to a large extent. The fifth respondent, the Divisional Manager, Trivandrum, issued notice Ex. P1 dated 9-1-1963 to the petitioner calling for his explanation for his unsatisfactory performance. The petitioner submitted an explanation; and he was transferred to Pathanapuram by an order Ex. P3 dated 23-1-1963.

(2.) The petitioner's work at Pathanapuram was also found very unsatisfactory; and in April, 1964 he was transferred to Trichur which is supposed to be a potential area for Life Insurance business. There was still no improvement. The volume of business was getting less and less. The fifth respondent thereupon issued a notice, Ex. P4 dated 19-8-1964, to the petitioner charging him with inefficient and negligent work, resulting in the reduction of volume of business and calling upon him to show cause why action should not be taken against him under Regulations, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Staff Regulations). The petitioner submitted an explanation, Ex. P5 dated 28-8-1964. It was considered by the Zonal Manager, the fourth respondent, who by his order Ex. P6 dated 5-10-1964, informed the petitioner that his explanation was unsatisfactory, and that the Corporation proposed to terminate his services in terms of Regulation.39(1)(f) of the Staff Regulations. Ex. P6 also called upon the petitioner to show cause why the proposed action should not be taken against him. The petitioner submitted a fairly detailed explanation as per Ex. P7 dated 5-11-1964. It was considered by the fourth respondent, who by his order Ex. P8 dated 21-1-1965 informed the petitioner that on a consideration of the whole matter, his work habits, maintenance of records, etc. showed that his work was quite irregular in maintaining the records. Ex. P8 also stated that the Corporation would be justified in taking the proposed action of terminating his services, but it was, however, deferred that action till 31-3-1965 on condition that the petitioner completed a fresh business for Rs. 2 1/2 lakhs within that period, and that, if he failed to do so, his services would be terminated.

(3.) The position was reviewed after 31-3-1965 when it was found that the petitioner had completed business only for Rs. 2.03 lakhs instead of 2.5 lakhs. The fourth respondent, by his letter Ex. P9 dated 10-5-1965, informed the petitioner that, in view of the efforts put in by him, though not to the requisite extent, he would be given one more opportunity till 30-6-1965 to do a fresh business of Rs. 1 1/2 lakhs, and that, if he failed to do so, his services would be terminated as originally proposed.