G.Suganthi v. The Life Insurance Corporation
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 8.1.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G.RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN W.A.No.1753 of 2017 and C.M.P.No.22265 of 2017 G.Suganthi Appellant/Petitioner
Versus
1. The Life Insurance Corporation of India, rep. by the Chairman, Executive Director (Marketing/PD) Central Office, "Yogakshema"
Mumbai 400 021.
2. The Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Southern Zonal Office, Old No.102, New No.153, LIC Building, Anna Salai, Mount Road, Chennai-2.
3. The Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Salem Division, Salem.
Respondents/Respondents Prayer: Writ Appeal filed filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 15.9.2017 passed in W.P.No.29400 of 2016 on the file of this court.
Prayer in WP.29400/16:
Filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records on the file of the 3rd respondent in his proceeding No.Nil dated 21.7.2016 in Annexure III B and also on the file of the 1st respondent in connection with the modification in his order dated 23.7.2016 in Ref: Mktg/ZD/ 20/2016 Modification in Draft of Annexure III-C and quash the same by holding that the interpretation of the Rules 7 and 8 of the Life Insurance
Corporation of India Development Officer (Revision of Certain Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules 2009 and Life Insurance Corporation of India Development Officer (Revision of certain Terms and Conditions of Service) Amendment Rules 2016 notified by the respondents 1 and 2 for straight termination without enquiry as unconstitutional and ultravires or pass any other appropriate writ order.
For appellant : Mr.R.Jayaprakash For respondent : Mr.S.Silambanan, Senior Counsel for M/s.Kaavya Silambanan Associates COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of the court was made by RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that officers working in the Life Insurance Corporation of India in the cadre of Development Officer, have been served with show cause notice as to non-performance of the target fixed by the LIC respondent herein. He is very particular about the word 'shall' used in the phrase 'why your services should not be terminated' and would contend that it is predetermined to terminate the services of the appellant/writ petitioner and when a similar argument was advanced before the Kerala High Court, the Kerala High Court held that the word 'may' should have been used rather the word 'should'. He would rely upon the decision in K.S.RAVINDRAN v. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD. ((2015) 7 SCC 222), wherein the Supreme Court has held that termination of services, straightaway without imposing minor penalties first, on the ground of poor performance of the employee of the Insurance Company, is illegal.
3. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that as against the judgment of the Kerala High court, LIC has moved SLP and obtained stay. He would further contend that the writ petition is filed only as against a show cause notice and therefore, it is not maintainable.
4. Accepting such a stand, the learned Single Judge after going through the factual aspects of the case, disposed of the writ petitions.
5. On going through the materials available on record, we are of the view that since it is only a show cause notice, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. However, in our considered view, the usage of the word 'should' will amount to pre-determination of the issue and it leads to the apprehension expressed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Therefore, such usage is hereby deprecated.
6. Further, nowadays, the LIC has been encouraging the online policies with technological developments. Therefore, it is high time for effecting necessary amendments with regard to the terms and conditions of service for the Development Officers in connection with their performance in securing the insurance policies.
7. Since the challenge in the present proceedings is only a show cause notice, without interfering with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, we dispose of the writ appeal subject to the above observation. The explanation of the appellant would be considered on merits and in accordance with law complying with the principles of natural justice and also in the light of the decision in (2015) 7 SCC 222). No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ssk.
To:
1. The Chairman, Executive Director (Marketing/PD) The Life Insurance Corporation of India, Central Office, "Yogakshema"
Mumbai 400 021.
2. The Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Southern Zonal Office, Old No.102, New No.153, LIC Building, Anna Salai, Mount Road, Chennai-2.
3. The Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Salem Division, Salem.
+1cc to Mr.R.JAYAPRAKASH, Advocate, S.R.No. 1370 W.A.No.1753 of 2017 PVS(CO) TR(06/02/2018)