LIC OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs. OM PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal under Section 100 CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 22.5.1992 passed by Additional District Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Regular Appeal No. 9/1984 whereby appeal has been allowed and reversed the judgment and decree dated 23.12.1983 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 62/1983 by which suit of the plaintiff has been decreed.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that plaintiff -respondent appointed as Class -IV servant in Life Insurance Corporation of India (in short the Corporation). The appointment order was of dated 27.9.1978 and he joined the duties on 30.9.1978, he worked upto 31.8.1979 and in the intermediate period, he remained absent for 129 days, a show cause notice has also been given to the plaintiff, he was on probation period and his services were terminated on 31.8.1979, appeal was filed by the plaintiff before the competent authority which was rejected. The contention of the plaintiff in the suit was that his services were terminated illegally as no enquiry was conducted, the order of termination is stigmatic and punitive, hence it was duty of the employer to follow the principles of natural justice and to hold an enquiry was obligatory on the part of the employer. In the written statement filed by the appellants, it was sated that as per clause (5) of the appointment order, plaintiff could be removed at any time without assigning any reason. The termination order was simpliciter , it is not stigmatic and not penal and Corporation has passed a legal order in accordance with law. The court below has framed three issues in the matter and after hearing the parties, the suit was decreed whereas the appellate court has held that it was obligatory on the part of employer to conduct enquiry as regards the allegation of misconduct and dismissal order was held to be illegal, against which this second appeal has been preferred which was admitted on these legal issues:

(3.) MAINLY , the facts are not in dispute that respondent had joined the services on 30.9.1978 pursuant to appointment order dated 27.9.1978 and his services were terminated on 31.8.1979 vide order Ex. 1. The contention of the appellants is that termination order is simpliciter . The respondent was under probation period and as provided in clause (5) of appointment order, his services could be discharged at any time without assigning any reason. The discharge order is not stigmatic nor punitive, hence no enquiry was needed.