DEEPA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is a Development Officer in the Life Insurance Corporation of India ('LIC' for short) , has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P1 show cause notice proposing termination of her services and calling for her explanation on the same within a period of 15 days. It was stated that her performance for the appriasal year ended on 31.8.2016 was assessed and it was observed that the 2 appraisal years immediately preceding the relevant appraisal year exceeded 50% of the aggregate of the eligible premium in the 3 appraisal years and therefore her services were liable to be terminated under Rule 6(8) r/w Rule 7 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Revision of Certain Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2009 as amended in 2016. It was stated that she was being given an opportunity to confirm through representation in writing the discrepancies, if any, in the figures relating to her performance as mentioned therein or the eligible premium with all supporting documents within 15 days' of the receipt of that letter. She was directed to ensure that full particulars were furnished for taking necessary action. According to the petitioner, this show cause notice was issued without taking into consideration the judgment of this Court in Ext.P2. It is her further case that the appellate authority had already condoned the defects in the appraisal years for the period upto 2014-15 as per Ext.P4 order issued on 14.8.2016 and thereafter it is arbitrary to take action against her again on the basis of her performance in those appraisal years.

(2.) The petitioner had earlier filed W.P(C) .No.28220 of 2014 when a show cause notice was issued in similar circumstances on 5.12012, which was followed by termination. Ext.P1 notice was issued subsequent to the judgment therein and after that judgment was affirmed by the Division Bench. Therefore, it is also stated that Rule 6(8) and the proceedings for termination of her services are liable to be struck down.

(3.) The cost ratio for the appraisal period from 1.9.2010 to 31.8.2010 was 17.92%; whereas for the years 2010-11 and 2011-12 it was 39.04% and 39.05% respectively. In the light of the judgment of this Court, the respondents allowed the petitioner to continue in service. It is her case that Ext.P1 order is issued without considering her explanation or the condonation in Ext.P4 order.