JUDGMENT M.U. Issac, J. 1. The petitioner is now a Development Officer Grade II in the employment of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, which is the first respondent. He started his career as a teacher. Subsequently he joined the Muthu Provident Insurance Co., Ltd., as a Pro rata Inspector; and he left that company on 31-10-1955. Later he joined the Central Mutual Life Insurance Co. Ltd., wherein he worked up to 30th October, 1956. The Life Insurance Corporation of India was constituted with effect from 1-11-1956, which took over all the Life Insurance business in India. On 25-10-1956, the petitioner made an application for appointment in the Corporation as Pro rata Inspector. He was appointed by order, Ex. R3 dated 20-2-1957, as an Inspector of Agencies under the Kottayam branch with retrospective effect from 1-12-1956. The petitioner was subsequently promoted as per Ex. P31 dated 4-2-1958 as Field Officer with effect from 30-12-1957. He was transferred to Thodupuzha, where he worked from early 1958 till the beginning of 1963. During that period, the volume of his business reduced to a large extent. The fifth respondent, the Divisional Manager, Trivandrum, issued notice Ex. P1 dated 9-1-1963 to the petitioner calling for his explanation for his unsatisfactory performance. The petitioner submitted an explanation; and he was transferred to Pathanapuram by an order Ex. P3 dated 23-1-1963. 2. The petitioner's work at Pathanapuram was also found very unsatisfactory; and in April, 1964 he was transferred to Trichur which is supposed to be a potential area for Life Insurance business. There was still no improvement. The volume of business was getting less and less. The fifth respondent thereupon issued a notice, Ex. P4 dated 19-8-1964, to the petitioner charging him with inefficient and negligent work, resulting in the reduction of volume of business and calling upon him to show cause why action should not be taken against him under Regulations, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Staff Regulations). The petitioner submitted an explanation, Ex. P5 dated 28-8-1964. It was considered by the Zonal Manager, the fourth respondent, who by his order Ex. P6 dated 5-10-1964, informed the petitioner that his explanation was unsatisfactory, and that the Corporation proposed to terminate his services in terms of Regulation.39(1)(f) of the Staff Regulations. Ex. P6 also called upon the petitioner to show cause why the proposed action should not be taken against him. P6 dated 5-10-1964, informed the petitioner that his explanation was unsatisfactory, and that the Corporation proposed to terminate his services in terms of Regulation.39(1)(f) of the Staff Regulations. Ex. P6 also called upon the petitioner to show cause why the proposed action should not be taken against him. The petitioner submitted a fairly detailed explanation as per Ex. P7 dated 5-11-1964. It was considered by the fourth respondent, who by his order Ex. P8 dated 21-1-1965 informed the petitioner that on a consideration of the whole matter, his work habits, maintenance of records, etc. showed that his work was quite irregular in maintaining the records. Ex. P8 also stated that the Corporation would be justified in taking the proposed action of terminating his services, but it was, however, deferred that action till 31-3-1965 on condition that the petitioner completed a fresh business for Rs. 2 1/2 lakhs within that period, and that, if he failed to do so, his services would be terminated. 3. The position was reviewed after 31-3-1965 when it was found that the petitioner had completed business only for Rs. 2.03 lakhs instead of 2.5 lakhs. The fourth respondent, by his letter Ex. P9 dated 10-5-1965, informed the petitioner that, in view of the efforts put in by him, though not to the requisite extent, he would be given one more opportunity till 30-6-1965 to do a fresh business of Rs. 1 1/2 lakhs, and that, if he failed to do so, his services would be terminated as originally proposed. 4. The petitioner's work was again reviewed; and it was found that, though he introduced business to the extent of Rs. 1.6 lakhs till 30-6-1965, he neglected his work during the whole of April and almost in May, and his organisation of the field was very poor. The fourth respondent, therefore, issued to the petitioner a notice, Ex. P10 dated 7-8-1965, calling upon him to show cause why his service should not be terminated. The petitioner submitted his explanation, Ex. P11 dated 24-8-1965. It was considered by the fourth respondent, who by his letter Ex. P12 dated 20-9-1965 terminated his services. The petitioner filed an appeal as per Ex. P13 dated 4-10-1965 before the Managing Director of the Corporation, the third respondent, who by his letter, Ex. P14 dated 15-11-1965 upheld the finding of the fourth respondent. P11 dated 24-8-1965. It was considered by the fourth respondent, who by his letter Ex. P12 dated 20-9-1965 terminated his services. The petitioner filed an appeal as per Ex. P13 dated 4-10-1965 before the Managing Director of the Corporation, the third respondent, who by his letter, Ex. P14 dated 15-11-1965 upheld the finding of the fourth respondent. He, however, held that, in view of the fact that immediately preceding the date of his removal from service, the petitioner had endeavoured to reach the target though without success, he should be given 'a further chance subject to a reduction in his emoluments so as to keep the cost ratio within limits'. Accordingly, the petitioner was reinstated on a basic pay of Rs. 130/- as a Grade II Development Officer. The petitioner submitted a memorandum, Ex. P15 dated 1-6-1967 to the Chairman of the Corporation, the second respondent, who, by his order, Ex. P16 dated 4-10-1967, confirmed the decision of the third respondent. Thereupon the petitioner filed O. P. No. 456 of 1968 in this Court to quash the action taken against him by the Corporation. The Original Petition was dismissed summarily. The petitioner filed an appeal before a Division Bench of this Court. This Court by its judgment, Ex. P17 dated 27-1-1970 directed the respondents to reconsider the matter in accordance with the submission made by their counsel at the hearing. The judgment has recorded the said submission, and it reads: "(a) The appellant Shri. Mathew M. Kattimattom be given an opportunity to put forward his case against the charges of negligence and inefficiency, in a personal hearing before the Zonal Manager. The appellant will also be given opportunity to peruse the relevant records relating to the charges levelled against him. (b) The Zonal Manager will then make his report to the ultimate authority, the Chairman of the L.I.C. of India who will pass appropriate orders either confirming, altering or annulling the order of reduction. (c) Meanwhile the Appellant will continue as L.I.C. Development Officer, Grade II. (d) the personal hearing will be completed within a time fixed by Court and the Final Order also passed by the Chairman L.I.C. of India within a time to be fixed". The time for the personal hearing was fixed as six weeks, and for final orders also as six weeks after completion of the personal hearing. 5. (d) the personal hearing will be completed within a time fixed by Court and the Final Order also passed by the Chairman L.I.C. of India within a time to be fixed". The time for the personal hearing was fixed as six weeks, and for final orders also as six weeks after completion of the personal hearing. 5. Accordingly the matter went back to the Zonal Manager, the fourth respondent. He issued a notice to the petitioner fixing a date for personal hearing and giving him an opportunity to put forward his case. The petitioner appeared before the fourth respondent, and made his representations. He was also heard in person; and ultimately the fourth respondent submitted his report, Ex. P28, to the third respondent. Exs. P19 to P27 are the records relating to the representations made by the petitioner and the minutes of the personal hearing recorded by the fourth respondent. In his report, the fourth respondent found that the petitioner did not comply with the condition stipulated in Ex. P9, viz. completing business to the extent of 1.50 lakhs before 30-6-1965, and that the petitioner was also guilty of the charges made against him. The fourth respondent stated that no case was made out for altering or annulling the order of reduction in salary already passed against the petitioner. The second respondent considered the report; and he passed an order, Ex. P29 dated 16-4-1970, accepting the finding of the fourth respondent. This writ petition has been filed to quash the orders Exs. P12, P14, P16 and P28 and P29, and to issue a writ of mandamus to the respondents to treat the petitioner as a Development Officer, Grade I from 20-9-1965 and also to issue a writ or direction to the respondents to disburse to the petitioner the arrears of pay and allowances and other attendant benefits from 20-9-1965 the date on which his service was terminated as per Ex. P12. 6. The petitioner's case has been argued before me in great detail with ability and tenacity by his counsel Smt. Radhamani. Several points have been raised by her. Two of them can be easily disposed of. P12. 6. The petitioner's case has been argued before me in great detail with ability and tenacity by his counsel Smt. Radhamani. Several points have been raised by her. Two of them can be easily disposed of. One contention is that the petitioner is a person holding a civil post under the Union of India, that Art.311 applies to him, and that in so far as the procedure laid down in that Article has not been complied with in imposing of the punishment of reduction in rank, the said action is unconstitutional. A reading of that Article is sufficient to refute this contention. The petitioner is admittedly an employee under the Life Insurance Corporation of India which is a juristic person entirely different from the Union of India. There is, therefore, no substance in this contention. 7. I shall now go to the second contention. The Union of India has issued an Order dated 30-12-1957 under S.11 (2) of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956. This order is generally known as the Blue Order; and it lays down the terms and conditions of service of the personnel whose services were taken over by the Corporation at the time of its constitution from other insurance establishments. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner falls within the ambit of S.11(1) of the Act, that his services are accordingly governed by the Blue Order, and that the proceedings taken against the petitioner under the Staff Regulations are, therefore, invalid. S.11(1) applies only to persons who were in the employment of the insurance establishments immediately before the appointed day, viz., 1-11-1956 when the whole Life Insurance business in India was taken over by the Corporation. Ex. R2, the reminder sent by the petitioner to the Assistant Divisional Manager, Trivandrum about his application for appointment, contains a clear admission that he worked under the Central Mutual Life Insurance Co., Ltd., which was his immediate previous employer before he joined the service of the Corporation, until 30th August, 1956. That means that he was not in the employment of any insurance establishment immediately before the appointed day. There was a break of one day's service. The petitioner cannot, therefore, claim to be governed by the Blue Order. Even otherwise, this contention cannot be entertained, since the petitioner has not raised such a contention till at a very late stage when this writ petition was amended. There was a break of one day's service. The petitioner cannot, therefore, claim to be governed by the Blue Order. Even otherwise, this contention cannot be entertained, since the petitioner has not raised such a contention till at a very late stage when this writ petition was amended. There was no dispute that the petitioner was governed by the Staff Regulations, and the judgment of this Court, Ex. P17, proceeded on that admitted basis. It also makes no difference in respect of the requirements of the disciplinary enquiry whether an employee is governed by the Blue Order or the Staff Regulations. In substance the procedure is the same. In any view of the matter, the above contention has no substance. 8. Perhaps, the only relevancy of the question whether an employee of the Corporation is governed by the Blue Order or the Staff Regulations is that a breach or a non compliance of the Staff Regulations may not be justiciable in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in U . P. State Warehousing Corporation v. C. K. Tyagi ( AIR 1970 SC 1244 ) while breach or non compliance of the Blue Order, which confers statutory rights and liabilities, would be justiciable as held by the Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation v. Sunil Kumar ( AIR 1964 SC 847 ). That question does not, however, arise here, since counsel for the respondents fairly concedes that the respondents are bound to comply with the directions contained in Ex. P17, the judgment of this Court, and that Exs. P28 and P29 would be liable to be quashed, if those directions have not been complied with. Therefore the real question that arises for determination is whether the said directions have been complied with by the respondents in upholding the punishment awarded to the petitioner under the impugned order, Ex. P16 dated 4-10-1967. 9. I have already quoted the directions contained in the above judgment. In the light of those directions only two matters arise. One is whether the petitioner has been given a personal hearing before the Zonal Manager, and the other is whether the petitioner has been given an opportunity to peruse the relevant records regarding the charges levelled against him. Counsel for the petitioner contends that both these directions had been violated. In the light of those directions only two matters arise. One is whether the petitioner has been given a personal hearing before the Zonal Manager, and the other is whether the petitioner has been given an opportunity to peruse the relevant records regarding the charges levelled against him. Counsel for the petitioner contends that both these directions had been violated. It is also contended that the Zonal Manager misdirected himself in considering the charges against the petitioner. I shall deal with the latter contention first. 10. According to the petitioner's counsel, all that was open for the fourth respondent to consider in the light of Ex. P9 was whether the petitioner had done business to the target of Rs. 1,50,000/- before 30-6-1965; and if it was found that he had done so there was no question of considering any other matter; the punishment awarded to the petitioner was liable to be quashed. Counsel submits that the above condition was fixed in Ex. P9 in substitution or supersession of all previous charges against him. I am inclined to accept the above contention. A reading of Ex. P9 shows that, if the petitioner did the volume of business mentioned in Ex. P9 before 30-6-1965, there was no question of inquiring into his previous conduct of alleged negligence or inefficiency or imposing any punishment on him. But if he failed to comply with that condition, the charges of negligence and inefficiency have to be enquired into, and the question of punishment would depend on the findings on these charges: 11. The fourth respondent has considered in his report, Ex. P28, the question whether the petitioner did business for Rs. 1,50,000/- before 30-6-1965. The report shows that within the said period, the petitioner brought business to the extent of Rs. 1,30,000/- in addition to securing proposals to the extent of Rs. 30,000/-, but those proposals could not be accepted within the said period, since the Corporation imposed an additional condition to the effect that certificates regarding inoculation for cholera would also be furnished in respect of those proposals, since at that time, cholera broke out at Trichur, where the petitioner was working. The report does not mention whether the petitioner complied with that additional condition and the said proposals were also accepted. The fourth respondent has, however, rightly pointed out that, in respect of this business for Rs. The report does not mention whether the petitioner complied with that additional condition and the said proposals were also accepted. The fourth respondent has, however, rightly pointed out that, in respect of this business for Rs. 30,000/- there was sufficient justification for its non completion within the permitted period. Regarding the completed business for Rs. 1,30,000/-, the fourth respondent held that a major part of it was bogus, since the policy holders in majority cases defaulted payment of premiums after one month. Counsel for the petitioner rightly contends that the Corporation had not at any stage put such a case to the petitioner for being answered. I have examined all the records placed before me; and they show that the complaint made by the petitioner's counsel in this respect is correct. The report does not give any particulars regarding the default of the premiums; and there is also no indication whether those policies lapsed, and if so, whether they were subsequently revived. In these circumstances, it has to be held that the finding of the fourth respondent, in so far as it relates to the non compliance of the condition of completing a business for Rs. 1,50,000/- before 30-6-1965 cannot be sustained for want of any materials to support it. 12. Assuming that the above finding can be sustained, an enquiry naturally has to be conducted against the original charges of negligence and inefficiency. The notice, Ex. P4 has given sufficient materials regarding these charges, which show that the work done by the petitioner was deteriorating considerably from 1960 to 1963. This was the period, when the petitioner was working in Thodupzha taluk. Ex. P4 also shows that the expense ratio of the business done by him increased considerably during the above period. It went up from 14.4 per cent to 30.7. per cent. These facts were not denied by the petitioner. But his explanation was that it was a period of general deterioration in the insurance business, and that volume of business came down during the said period in all areas. That was the contention which he put forward even from the very beginning. He submitted a list of 12 documents as per Ex. P30 before the fourth respondent for being produced to make out the above contention. That was the contention which he put forward even from the very beginning. He submitted a list of 12 documents as per Ex. P30 before the fourth respondent for being produced to make out the above contention. The fourth respondent stated in the course of the hearing that, if any of the petitioner's contentions which sought to be made out by those documents were not acceptable, the fourth respondent would make available such of the documents as relating to those contentions, provided they were found relevant. On that basis, he allowed four of the twelve documents to be produced at the hearing; but he disallowed production of the remaining documents. It will be seen from a perusal of Ex. P30 that most of the documents were absolutely necessary to establish the defence of the petitioner. It follows that the petitioner was not given an opportunity as directed by the judgment of this Court to peruse the relevant records regarding the charges against him, and that the hearing given by the fourth respondent without bringing those documents in evidence would not be a proper hearing. The finding of the fourth respondent cannot be sustained on this account also. 13. In the result, I hold that the finding of the fourth respondent that the petitioner did not do business to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/- before 30-6-65 as directed in Ex. P9, and that he is guilty of the original charges of negligence and inefficiency cannot both be sustained. The order of the third respondent has only upheld the finding of the fourth respondent; and it cannot be have any a better footing. Ordinarily, a fresh enquiry has to be directed to be conducted under these circumstances in accordance with the provisions of natural justice and directions contained in the judgment of this Court. But on the peculiar facts and circumstances, of this case, I do not propose to do that. The proceedings against the petitioner were started in 1963; and he has also been transferred from place to place. For a short period, he was also thrown out of service as a punishment, which was set aside in appeal as reduction in rank. The petitioner has been forced to spend considerable part of his energy and time in litigation against the disciplinary action taken against him. It would be now too hard to direct this protracted enquiry to be started afresh. The petitioner has been forced to spend considerable part of his energy and time in litigation against the disciplinary action taken against him. It would be now too hard to direct this protracted enquiry to be started afresh. It is also seen from Ex. P8 that the petitioner was given an opportunity to make good his lapses by doing business for Rs. 2.5 lakhs before 31-3-1965, and he succeeded in doing business to the extent of Rs. 2.03 lakhs, and that he was again given an opportunity to do business for Rs. 1.5 lakhs before 30-6-1965 and he succeeded in doing it, though the fourth respondent found that part of it was bogus, which in my view is a finding that cannot be sustained. In these circumstances, I quash the order, Ex. P29, passed by the third respondent confirming the punishment imposed on the petitioner by the impugned orders Exs. P14 and P16, and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as Development Officer Grade I with effect from this date. The petitioner's salary in that grade should be fixed after taking into account his service in the said grade on 20-9-1965, the date on which his service was terminated as per Ex. P12. The petitioner will not be entitled to any benefits of salary or allowance during the period from 20-9-1965 till this date, except as a Grade II Development Officer to which rank he was reduced as per the impugned order Ex. P14. This writ petition is disposed of in the manner stated above. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.