ARUN TANDON Vs. INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Arun Kumar Tandon. was on the clerical staff of the National Insurance Company Limited, respondent No. 1 herein, when on April 29, 1976, the Central Government floated a scheme known as General Insurance (Rationalisation of Pay Scales and other Conditions of Service of Development Staff) Scheme, 1976, providing for conversion of the clerical staff into Development staff. This scheme laid down the procedure for categorisation of Development Staff and their emoluments and other perquisites besides leave. Provident Fund and Gratuity, Para 11 of the scheme provided that every person employed with the Development, Staff shall maintain his cost ratio within the limits stipulated in Sub-clause (b) of Clause (17) of Para. 3. According to Clause (17) an Inspector operating in a city other than Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, or other A-Class or B-1 and B-2 Class cities was bound to maintain cost ratio up to the maximum limit of 12'/2%,

(2.) PURSUANT to this scheme the Assistant Manager of Insurance Company, respondent No. 2 herein, addressed a letter to the petitioner on 13-7-1978, that in case he accepted the conditions of service set out therein, he shall be appointed as a probationary Inspector with effect from 1-1-1978. Some of the conditions stated therein, which alone are relevant for the present discussion, read as below:

(3.) THE petitioner, on 29-7-1978 accepted all the conditions unreservedly by writing back : "i accept all the terms and conditions stated in this letter". He continued working on the Development Staff as an Inspector when on 25-8-1980 he was placed under suspension by the Divisional Manager, respondent No. 3 herein, pending enquiry into a charge of criminal misappropriation against him. Ultimately, respondent No. 1 by his order dated 18-8-1981, reverted him to former cadre of Assistant in the Clerical staff by saying that his performance as Inspector had been unsatisfactory during his probationary period. Through the medium of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order of his reversion on the grounds : firstly, that it, has been passed at his back without giving him a prior hearing and is, therefore, violative of the principles of natural justice; secondly, that he having passed the Licentiate examination and also having conducted insurance business up to the mark a right had accrued in his favour to hold the post of Inspector substantively; thirdly, that the order is actuated by malice; and fourthly, that it is violative of Article 311 of the Constitution.