Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 512 (AP)

Neelakanteswara Rao v. Chief Manager

2020-08-10

R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

body2020
JUDGMENT R.Raghunandan Rao, J. - The petitioner who was earlier working as an insurance agent for the 4th Respondent Corporation, had applied for selection and appointment as Apprentice Development Officer in the South Central Zone, Office of the 4th respondent Corporation, under the Agent's category. He was initially selected and appointed as Apprentice Development Officer by an order dated 27.11.2019, and was working as Probationary Development officer with effect from 01.01.2010 at Palasa Kasibugga Branch, Srikakulam District. While he was discharging his duties as probationer, he was served with an order of termination dated 15.02.2020, wherein his service was terminated with effect from 15.02.2020. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner has approached this Court on the ground that the termination order was passed without assigning any reason and as such is unknown to Law and he has adverse consequences on his career prospects. 2. The respondents have filed counter affidavit, in which it is stated that a complaint was received regarding the selection of the petitioner. On the basis of the said complaint, an enquiry was initiated by appointing an enquiry officer who verified the data in respect of the petitioner for the past five (05) years of his association with the life insurance corporation. 3. At this stage, it could be necessary to point out that one of the qualifications prescribed for appointment as Apprentice Development Officer under the agents category was that the agent should have brought in a net first year premium income not less than Rs.5,00,000/- during immediately preceding five financial years and net first year premium income is not less than Rs.1,00,000/- of 50 lives in each of any three of these financial years. 4. It appears that the complaint was that there were some discrepancies in the statistics given by the applicant in his application. In the application filed by the petitioner which was certified by a responsible officer of the corporation it was shown that the petitioner had brought in a first year premium income of more than Rs.5,00,000/- during preceding financial years and had also insured minimum of 50 lives for three years. 5. In the application filed by the petitioner which was certified by a responsible officer of the corporation it was shown that the petitioner had brought in a first year premium income of more than Rs.5,00,000/- during preceding financial years and had also insured minimum of 50 lives for three years. 5. In the course of the investigation carried out by the enquiry officer mentioned above, the respondents' corporation claims, that the figures given by the petitioner were not correct and the petitioner did not meet the requirement of insurance of minimum 50 lives for three years out of the five years taken into account. 6. In the light of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the enquiry carried out by the respondents behind the back of the petitioner. The Principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India and others v Mahaveer C. Singhvi, (2010) 8 SCC 220 and Pradip Kumar v Union of India and others, (2012) 13 SCC 182 would be squarely applicable to the present case as an enquiry had been conducted behind the back of the petitioner without giving him an opportunity of hearing and since the enquiry resulted in adverse finding which is stigmatic to the petitioner and had resulted in a punitive order of termination of a service, the said order would require to be set aside. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for respondents. 8. In the normal circumstances, the order of termination dated 15.02.2020 would not require any interference of this Court in as much as the said order does not set out any fact which is stigmatic to the petitioner. In fact, the original grounds in the writ petition that no reasons were recorded in the order of termination would also not result in any interference by this Court as it was termination of service at the stage of probation. 9. However, in view of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents setting out the fact that there was an enquiry conducted in the matter and since the counter affidavit specifically states that the petitioner had suppressed the information and had made wrong declarations, the order of termination would have to be treated as an order creating stigma against the petitioner. 10. 10. In these circumstances, the principle enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid two cases would be applicable to the present case. 11. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the order of termination dated 15.02.2020 passed against the petitioner. 12. However, it would be open to the respondents to conduct an enquiry on the question of whether the petitioner meets the minimum business requirements under the agent's category after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to set forth his case. In the event, the respondent corporation seeks to conduct an enquiry the same shall be completed within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. 13. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, in this Writ petition, shall stand closed.