Back
2022 Supreme(Ker) 261
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J.
Nimmy Rose James W/o Joseph Roy – Petitioner
Versus
The Life Insurance Corporation of India – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 4183 of 2022
Decided On : 08-02-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Binoy Vasudevan.
For the Respondent: S. Easwaran.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of natural justice in cases involving adverse civil consequences, emphasizing the need to afford an opportunity of hearing even when the statute is silent on the matter.
Headnote:
Natural Justice - Termination of Service - The court set aside the order of termination and directed the appellate authority to consider the appeal afresh after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, emphasizing the application of natural justice in cases involving adverse civil consequences.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Development Officer in the Life Insurance Corporation of India, had her service terminated without being afforded an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner appealed the decision, alleging that her circumstances, including the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic and maternity leave, were not considered.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order of termination was issued in violation of principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing. The court directed the appellate authority to consider the appeal afresh after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, either physically or virtually, and to pass a reasoned order within eight weeks. The petitioner was also allowed to continue in service until the appeal was heard and disposed of.
Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice, failure to consider the petitioner's circumstances, absence of opportunity of hearing
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that when a statute is silent on providing an opportunity of personal hearing, particularly in cases involving adverse civil consequences such as termination of service, natural justice must be read into the statute.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of termination, directed the appellate authority to consider the appeal afresh after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, and allowed the petitioner to continue in service until the appeal was heard and disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J.
1. The petitioner is a Development Officer in the 1st respondent Life Insurance Corporation of India. By Ext.P13, the 3rd respondent passed an order terminating the service of the petitioner as a Development Officer which is to take effect on expiry of 3 months from the date of receipt of the order in terms of the provisions of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Development Officers (Revision of Certain Terms and Conditions of Service Rules) 2009 as amended by Amendments Rules 2016. Against Ext.P13 order, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal dated 01.12.2021 before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent by Ext.P14 order rejected the appeal. Challenging Ext.P14, the petitioner has approached this Court. According to the petitioner, she could not bring in the required premium for the appraisal year due to the situation created by Covid-19 pandemic and the maternity leave availed. The 2nd respondent without considering these aspects and without hearing the petitioner, has passed Ext.P14 dismissing her appeal.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. S. Easwaran, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that Ext.P14 order has been passed without application of mind and in total disregard to the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was not heard before passing the order of termination and the contentions of the petitioner in the appeal was not considered by the 2nd respondent with due application of mind.
4. Per contra, Sri. S. Easwaran, the learned Standing Counsel submits that there is no provision under the statute governing the consideration of appeal, which provides for a personal hearing of the parties before an order is passed in the appeal.
5. Since it is not disputed that Ext.P14 has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, I find that the order is issued in violation of principles of natural justice. If the statute is silent with regard to providing opportunity of personal hearing to the affected person, particularly when the decision involves adverse civil consequences of termination of service, natural justice has to be read in to the statute. Accordingly, I set aside Ext.P14. There will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider afresh the appeal dated 01.12.2021 filed by the petitioner against Ext.P13 order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The hearing can be either physically or virtually. The Appellate Authority shall consider the contentions of the petitioners in Ext.P13 and shall pass a reasoned order. Orders as above shall be passed within a period of eight weeks. Till such time the appeal is heard and disposed of and the order communicated to the petitioner, the petitioner shall continue in service as Development Officer in the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
6. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.
