GOPAL KRISHNA BEHERA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the Writ Petitions having involved common question of law & facts, were heard together & are disposed of by this common Judgment. The Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 7949 of 2014 seeks to challenge the three months' notice of termination from service dated 14.03.2014 under Annexure-7 in accordance with the provisions contained under Rule-7(1) of Life Insurance, Corporation of India, Development Officers (Revision of Certain Terms & Conditions of Service) Rules, 2009 (in short "the Rules, 2009"). Similarly in W.P.(C) No. 8501 of 2014, three months' notice of termination of service has already been issued to the Petitioner on 14.3.2014 under Annexure 10 under Rules, 2009. The Petitioners in both the cases assail the notices on the ground that the same are arbitrary, unreasonable & contrary to the provisions of law & therefore, this Court may set aside the same.

(2.) Ms. Deepali Mahapatra, Learned Counsel appearing for both the Petitioners strenuously urged that the Petitioners were appointed pursuant to office Order Dated 29.01.2009 under Annexure-1 & they will go for a probation period of 12 months initially & at the discretion of the authorities, the said period could be extended & if necessary their services could be terminated. But after completion of probation period, the Petitioners' services had been confirmed, vide Annexure-2 while they were continuing as Development Officers. The notices of termination of service dated 14.03.2014 had been served giving three months time as per Rule 7(1) of the Rules, 2009. It is stated that such notices are the outcome of non-application of mind & contrary to the provision of law. To substantiate her contention, Ms. Mohapatra has relied upon the Judgments of Allahabad High Court in Vivek Anand v. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors., 2012 11 ADJ 508& Kuldeep Sonkar v. Union of India & Ors. Writ-A No. 18287 of 2013 where the earlier Judgment in Vivek Anand case has been referred to.

(3.) Mr. S.P. Panda, Learned Counsel appearing for Opp. Party Nos. 2 to 4 states that the Development Officers having not satisfied the conditions by giving business to the organization, requested for extension of probation for three months to enable them to achieve the target & such extension of probation might be communicated to them. But subsequently, the Petitioners were confirmed against the posts they were holding. It is stated that the Petitioners having not achieved the minimum target by providing business as per the terms & conditions of the appointment order under Annexure-1 read with Rules, 2009, the impugned notices were given to them under Rule-7(1) of the Rules, 2009 terminating their services after expiry of three months period from the date of notice. Several opportunities were given to the Petitioners to improve their business, but the Petitioners having failed to satisfy the conditions stipulated therein, the impugned notices terminating their services were issued well within the jurisdiction of the authority. Therefore, the action taken having been done in conformity with the provisions of law, the same may not be interfered with by this Court. In addition to the same, it is urged that against the order of termination appeal lies under Rule 7(2) of the Rules, 2009. Therefore, without availing the alternative remedy, the Petitioners should not have approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petitions. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the Judgments of Supreme Court in K.S. Rasid & Son v. The Income Tax Investigation Commission etc., 1954 AIR(SC) 207 & Munna Lal v. State of U.P. & 4 Ors., & Allahabad High Court in Writ A No. 23101 of 2014 disposed of on 22.04.2014 wherein Vivek Anand case was referred in.