Back
2025 Supreme(Pat) 364
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
HARISH KUMAR, J.
Abhimanyu Kumar S/o Shri Dhaneshwar Paswan - Appellant
Versus
The Life Insurance Corporation of India - Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 905 of 2019
Decided On : 20-01-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Bindhyachal Singh, Satya Prakash, Smriti Singh
For the Respondents: Rakesh Kumar, Abhimanyu Vatsa, Rajni Kant Singh, Sameer Prakash
Timely communication of performance appraisals is essential; failure to do so violates principles of natural justice and fairness, potentially negating termination decisions.
Headnote:(A) Life Insurance Corporation of India Development Officers (Revision of certain terms and conditions of service) Rules, 2009 - Termination of services - The petitioner contested termination based on uncommunicated appraisal reports, which contravened natural justice principles as per rulings in Dev Dutt and Sukhdev Singh. (Paras 12, 24, 30)
(B) Natural Justice - Every entry affecting an employee must be communicated timely to avoid prejudice and provide an opportunity to improve performance. (Paras 25, 30)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was appointed as a Development Officer and faced termination without timely appraisal communication. He argued that he was unaware of performance deficiencies due to inaction from the employer.
Findings of Court:
The Court found the termination order flawed due to the lack of proper appraisal communication, violating principles of fairness.
Issues: The key issues addressed were the timing of performance communication and the resulting fairness of the termination.
Ratio Decidendi: The rules mandate timely communication of performance appraisals to allow the employee to challenge or improve upon them, which the employer failed to do.
Result: The termination orders were set aside and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. termination process for development officer (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. arguments regarding appraisal rules and amendments (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. court's interpretation of applicable rules (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 4. legal duty of communication in employee appraisals (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 5. conclusion on the validity of termination order (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
JUDGMENT :
HARISH KUMAR, J.
1. Heard Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Abhimanyu Vats, learned Advocate for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated 03.06.2017 issued under the signature of Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, East Central Zone, Patna whereby the services of the petitioner as Development Officer has been terminated from the date of receipt of the order in terms of the provisions of Life Insurance Corporation of India Development Officers (Revision of certain terms and conditions of service) Rules, 2009. The petitioner also prays for quashing of the order dated 17.07.2018 issued by the Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation, Central Office, Mumbai whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of termination also came to rejected.
3. The short facts, which led to the filing of the present writ petition are that after facing prescribed selection process, the petitioner was selected for the post of Apprentice Development Officer by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘LIC’) on 14.12.2010.
4. On being selected, the petitioner has also completed the requisite training successfully and thereupon he was appointed as Probationary Development Officer vide letter dated 14.05.2011. Having completed the probationary period successfully, the service of the petitioner was confirmed with effect from 15.11.2012, vide letter dated 14.12.2012, the copy of which is marked as Annexure P/4 to the writ petition. The said letter clearly indicated that the work of the petitioner will again be reviewed at the end of twelve months from the date of his confirmation. Furthermore, the services of the petitioner is to be governed by LIC (Staff Regulation, 1960) now in force and amended from time to time and as per the provision of LIC Development Officers (Revision of certain terms and conditions of service) Rules, 2009.
5. Despite the direction for review of the work of the petitioner, no appraisal letter was served upon the petitioner in the year 2013, 2014 and 2015. It is the contention of the petitioner that for the period 01.12.2012 to 30.11.2013, 01.12.2013 to 30.11.2014 and 01.12.2014 to 30.11.2015 were settled in October, 2016. It is rather unfortunate that despite the aforesaid fact all of a sudden, the petitioner has served upon two letters, both dated 08.11.2016, issued under the signature of Senior Divisional Manager, Bhagalpur wherein the petitioner’s performance for appraisal year 2012-13 and 2013-14 issued indicating deficient work performance of the petitioner, seeking show cause as to why the service of the petitioner be not terminated in terms of Sub-Rule 7 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Revision of certain terms and conditions of service) Rules, 2009. The petitioner immediately responded to the show-cause letters both dated 08.11.2016 on 12.12.2016 with an undertaking to perform well within subscribed cost limit for the year 2016-17.
6. Notwithstanding the exhaustive show-cause reply of the petitioner and an undertaking to perform well within the subscribed cost limit for the year 2016-17, the impugned order of termination came to be passed.
7. Aggrieved with the order of termination, the petitioner preferred memo of appeal before the Managing Director, LIC of India, Central Office, Mumbai with a prayer to revoke the order of termination by raising several ground therein. However, the same did not find any favour and the appeal of the pet
