BRANCH MANAGER, LIC OF INDIA Vs. D MURALIDARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 5.3.2004 made in W. P. No.18965 of 1996 quashing the communication dated 19.8.1996 issued by the third appellant herein and the proceedings dated 25.10.1996 of the second appellant herein confirming the communication issued by the third appellant herein referred to above.

(2.) The admitted facts are that the respondent/writ petitioner was promoted as Assistant Branch Manager from the post of Development Officer. An incumbent in the post of Assistant Branch Manager is entitled to avail interest free car loan, which the respondent/writ petitioner availed by virtue of his promotion. However, the respondent/writ petitioner was reverted to the post of Development Officer as it was found that the respondent/writ petitioner was not entitled to be promoted to the post of Assistant Branch Manager. The respondent/writ petitioner did not challenge his reversion to the post of Development Officer, in which capacity he is not entitled to avail interest free car loan. Under such circumstances, the third appellant by proceedings dated 19.8.1996 required the respondent/writ petitioner to surrender the car to the Divisional Officer, Marketing Department. On receipt of the said communication, the respondent/writ petitioner submitted his explanation on 22.8.1996 stating that he had already paid back an amount of Rs.36,616/- against the loan advanced to him to purchase the car and therefore, there is no justification in seeking surrender of car. Despite the above, the second respondent by proceedings dated 25.10.1996 directed the respondent/ writ petitioner to surrender the car. Hence, the respondent herein preferred the writ petition.

(3.) Mr. S. SILAMBANAN, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants inviting our attention to the proceedings dated 21.8.1999 of the Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India dated 21.8.1999 whereunder it is stated that if the respondent fails to repay the outstanding loan in one lump-sum, interest at 12% would be charged on the loan amount outstanding as on the date of reversion, contends that a demand was raised for interest on the loan amount sanctioned to the respondent and therefore, the respondent is liable to pay the interest on the loan amount outstanding as on the date of reversion.