Jharkhand High Court
Ashutosh Kr. Singh & Others vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India & ... on 29 November, 2022
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (S) No. 2559 of 2010
Ashutosh Kr. Singh & Others ... ... Petitioners
Versus
Life Insurance Corporation of India & Others
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioners : Mr. V. P. Singh, Sr. Advocate : Ms. Bandana Kumari Sinha, Adv.
For the Respondents : Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Srijan, Advocate
---
17/29.11.2022
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: -
"(a) Issuance of a writ of certiorari or in nature thereof for quashing/cancelling/rescinding the order of termination of services of the petitioners passed by the Respondent - Sr. Divisional Manager as contained in Annexure-3 (series);
(b) Issuance of a writ of mandamus or in nature thereof commanding/directing the respondents -
(i) Not to terminate the services of the petitioners,
(ii) To extend the period of probation of the petitioners for further period of one year in terms of clause 2 of the appointment letter considering the facts and circumstances of this case, and
(iii) To give all consequential benefits to the petitioners of extended period of probation, AND/OR For issuance of any other appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s)/Rule(s) in the facts and circumstance of this case and in the interest of Justice."
Arguments of the Petitioners
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the terms and conditions of appointment of the petitioners as Probationary Development Officer has been annexed as Annexure-1 series . He submits that the petitioners were appointed initially for a probation period of twelve months and the respondent corporation in its sole discretion was entitled to extend the period of probation. He has also referred to the minimum business which was required to be achieved by the petitioners mentioned in clause-10 of the terms and conditions.
2The learned senior counsel submits that the petitioners were terminated vide impugned orders as contained in Annexure-3 series. He submits that the impugned orders of termination is stigmatic in nature in view of the fact that the same refers to alleged inefficiency of the petitioners in achieving the targets which is stigmatic in nature. The learned senior counsel has also submitted that as per the norms of the respondents, examination/training of the agents to be nominated by the petitioners was to be done twice a month, but this schedule was not followed by the respondents and therefore, the petitioners could not induct sufficient number of agents on account of which the petitioners could not achieve the targets. The details of the agents placed and inducted by the petitioners has been given in paragraph-23 of the writ petition.
4. The learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1974) 2 SCC 831 (Shamsher Singh vs. State of Punjab) and has referred to paragraph 62 to 64 thereof to submit that it has been held in para-62 of the judgment that if the termination of service is based on misconduct, negligence, inefficiency or other disqualification, then it is a punishment and therefore the rules of natural justice is required to be followed. The learned senior counsel has submitted that in the present case, the order of termination is not a simplicitor order of termination, but it is stigmatic on account of alleged inefficiency and therefore in view of the aforesaid judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the impugned orders of termination cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
5. The learned counsel has further submitted that through a supplementary affidavit, he has brought on record instances of various persons for whom there was extension of probationary period, but the petitioners have been discriminated and therefore, the action of the respondents who is State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Arguments of the Respondents
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, while opposing the prayer, has submitted that the orders of 3 termination was passed after expiry of the initial period of probation which was for the period of twelve months and upon overall assessment of the petitioners, it was found that the petitioners could not achieve the targets and therefore the probation period of the petitioners was not extended and their services were terminated. The learned counsel has also submitted that the impugned orders are not stigmatic and therefore, no case for interference is made out.
7. The learned counsel has also referred to the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court reported in (2005) SCC Online Jhar 413 (Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. vs. Haripad Rohidas) and has referred to paragraph-11 thereof. He submits that similar order of termination was involved in the said case and it was held that the same was not stigmatic merely because it indicated that the writ petitioner had failed to achieve certain targets as per the letter of appointment. The learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1994) 2 SCC 323 (M. Venugopal vs. Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr.) and has referred to paragraph-15 thereof to submit that even under the general law, the service of the probationer can be terminated after making an overall assessment of his performance during the period of probation and no notice is required to be given before termination of such service.
8. The learned counsel has also submitted that as per the various parameters, the petitioners could not achieve the required targets including the number of agents who were to be involved and otherwise also the material brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit is not comparable to that of the petitioners as their performance was much below the required standards.
9. Arguments concluded.
10. Post this case on 31.01.2023 for judgment.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Mukul