IMPORTANT POINT
Termination of a Probationary Development Officer's service for failing to meet business targets is valid under the terms of the appointment letter, and principles of natural justice do not apply.

JUDGMENT :

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order as contained in letter Ref: Sales/Mar/32 dated 06.01.2016 issued by the respondent No.5 to the petitioner whereby his service as Probationary Development Officer has been terminated with immediate effect i.e. from 06.01.2016 on the ground of not achieving minimum assigned business targets.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) of India, through its East Central Zonal Office, Patna published employment notice in its official website inviting online applications from eligible candidates for recruitment of Apprentice Development Officers with one of the stipulations that an Apprentice Development Officer would have to undergo Theoretical & Field Sales Training and on successful completion of apprenticeship, if found suitable for appointment in the service of the LIC in accordance with the rules, he/she might be appointed as Development Officer on probation, subject to the conditions framed by the LIC. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner applied for appointment on the post of Apprentice Development Officer and after clearing written test followed by interview, he was finally declared successful. After successful completion of training, he was appointed as Probationary Development Officer vide letter Ref: HDO/SALES dated 5.7.2014 issued by the respondent No.2 in pursuance thereof, he joined his duty at Ramgarh Branch of the LIC as Probationary Development Officer and started discharging his duty with full sincerity and best ability so as to achieve assigned target of business up to the satisfactory level.

3. It is further submitted that three persons including the petitioner were appointed as Probationary Development Officers in Hazaribagh Division of LIC in pursuance of the said advertisement, out of which the performance of the petitioner was much higher than other two persons. The Executive Director (Marketing/P.D), Central Office, Mumbai vide letter dated 11.9.2014 addressed to the Zonal Managers of different Zonal Offices of LIC issued instruction that in case a Probationary Development Officer, whose present performance was not within the parameters as specified by the Central Office, Marketing Department, Mumbai, but had the potential to perform better, the Sr. Divisional Manager might take a decision depending upon the merit of the case. In the earlier batch of appointment, the Probationary Development Officers, who had not been able to fulfil the targets assigned to them, were also confirmed on the said post by the respondent No.2 keeping in view their potential to perform better. The petitioner could not fulfil the target assigned to him since his mother met with an accident due to which he got disturbed. The petitioner had recruited 17 candidates as LIC agents till the December, 2015 and had fulfilled the target set out by the respondents. The petitioner again started working with full sincerity and deposited Rs.2,34,000/- in March, 2016 and still having Rs.3 Lac in hand. The petitioner had also sponsored 4 agents in March, 2016 out of which 3 were still working and one of them was ready to be coded. Moreover, the petitioner was appointed by the respondent No.2, however, the impugned termination letter was issued by the respondent No.5, who is an authority subordinate to the appointing authority and in that view of the matter, the impugned letter of termination is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction.

4. It is also contended that the petitioner represented the respondent No.2 on 7.4.2016 requesting to provide him one more chance to prove his ability and sincerity in performing the duty, however, the same was not responded. The impugned order of termination has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as neither any show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner nor he was given an opportunity of being heard before passing the said order.

5. Per-contra, learned coun