PALLABH BOSE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 31/10/2018 passed by the respondent, thereby terminating the services of the petitioner w.e.f 09/02/2019.

(2.) The petitioner was selected and appointed vide letter dated 28/11/2013 on the post of Probationer Development Officer. His probation period was extended and on 09/07/2015, he was confirmed in service. Thereafter, by letter dated 19/07/2017, the petitioner was informed that his cost ratio is excessive. The petitioner was thereafter served with a letter dated 23/07/2018, wherein it was informed that his cost ratio in the year ended on 30/06/2017 and in the preceding appraisal year ended on 30/06/2016 were 122.43 and 173.32 and he was informed that he should confirm in writing the discrepancy if any in the figures and if no reply is received, further action will be taken. Thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued on 18/09/2018 and the petitioner was informed that his services will be terminated if reply is not received. The petitioner accordingly submitted his reply to the said show-cause notice. Thereafter, he was served with a letter dated 31/10/2018 informing that his services will be terminated on expiry of three months from the date of receipt of order w.e.f. 09/02/2019. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued that the order dated 31/10/2018 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. He submits that before terminating his services, no departmental enquiry has been initiated against him. He submits that the nature of his service is permanent in nature, therefore, proper procedure should have been followed before terminating his services. He further relied upon the rules framed by the respondent/Corporation, which are known as "Life Insurance Corporation of India Development Officers (Revision of Certain Terms and Conditions of service) Amendment Special Instructions, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules, 2016). He further submits that as per Rule 3 of the said Rules, 2016, it is mandatory that before taking any action against the Development Officer, an opportunity to conform to the expense limit applicable to him as provided in Rule 6 should be given. In the present case, no such opportunity was given to the petitioner, therefore, it is contrary to the rules framed by the Corporation. He further relied upon the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. According to which, no penalty can be imposed on any employee without charges being communicated to him in writing and after giving him proper opportunity of hearing. He further submits that the Rules, which has been amended in 2016 are ultra vires, because it violates the fundamental rights of the petitioner to defend himself, therefore, the Rules, 2016 are liable to be struck down. Under the Rules, there is no provision for holding any departmental enquiry before terminating services of the Development Officer. This rule according to the petitioner, is ultra vires and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.