L I C OF INDIA Vs. M VENUGOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the respondent - Life Insurance Corporation of India, Machilipatnam, assailing the judgment of the learned single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner. The facts of the case are that the writ petitioner-respondent herein was appointed by the appellant - Corporation as a Probationary Development Officer with effect from 25-6-1984 in the prescribed scale of pay. He was posted at Ponnur, Guntur District. The order of appointment says that he will be on probation for a period of 12 months, which may be extended for a further period of 12 months. Clauses 3 to 5 in the order of appointment deal with the code of conduct to be followed by the employee; Clauses 6 to 9 deal with tours, advance deposits, record of work and collection of premiums; Clause 10 deals with the minimumbuiness that the writ petitioner is expected to do; and Clause 11 deals with confirmation and increments.

(2.) As per the terms of the appointment order, what is expected of the writ petitioner, as a Development Officer, to achieve confirmation within one year of probation, is that he must complete business of Rs. 15,00,000/- yielding first year's scheduled premium income of not less than Rs.52,000/-. He is also required to appoint 16 agents during the period of probation, who must get the necessary recognition. He is also expected to ensure that the minimum business is spread over not less than 120 lives and must undertake a lot of touring to achieve the said targets. The writ petitioner has fallen short of the requirement expected of him by the Corporation. Consequently his probation was extended on 13-6-1985 for a further period of 12 months on the same terms and conditions enumerated in the letter of appointment dated 25-6-1984. The writ petitioner has levelled certain charges of personal nature against the second appellant herein, who is the Senior Branch Manager, Baptla, but the same were denied by him. It is further alleged that an amount of Rs.65,000/-, which he has insured, was not taken into consideration. It is the contention of the writ petitioner that he covered business to the tune of Rs.13,42,500/- during the period from 1st April, 1985 to 31st March, 1986 which was ignored by the second appellant herein.

(3.) On 9-5-1986 a notice was issued by the second appellant herein enclosing the termination order, dated 13-5-1986, addressed to the writ petitioner and asking him to surrender his T.A. Book and other relevant papers. It is also contended by the writ petitioner that in fact the termination order was not served on him.