Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 1516
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.
Alok Pathak S/o Shri Gopal Jee Pathak - Petitioner
Versus
Life Insurance Corporation of India - Respondents
W.P. (S) No. 854 of 2017
Decided On : 16-10-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Advocate Mr. Jay Shankar Tiwary, Advocate Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent: UOI :Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, C.G.C. L.I.C., Mr. Umesh Pd. Singh, Sr.Advocate Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate
Termination based on failure to meet performance criteria is justified if no factual inaccuracies are disputed by the employee in response to show cause notices.
Headnote:(A) Insurance Act, 1938 - Life Insurance Corporation of India (Revision of Certain Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2009 - Termination of services - Petitioner challenged the termination notice under Rule 6(8) and 7 due to poor performance exceeding prescribed cost ratio - Court found that his performance was not maintainable under rules as he failed to respond to factual inaccuracies in notice. (Paras 1, 3, 11, 12)
(B) Procedural Fairness - The petitioner did not dispute facts outlined in show cause notice and did not avail statutory appeal; hence termination upheld as per procedure. (Paras 6, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Development Officer, was terminated for not maintaining a cost ratio as prescribed in LIC rules and due to failure to dispute figures when given multiple opportunities to rectify performance issues. He attributed poor performance to personal circumstances concerning his father's illness, which was deemed insufficient by the Court.
Findings of Court:
The termination was justified based on the persistent non-compliance with the performance criteria mandated by LIC's rules.
Issues: Whether the termination was lawful under the LIC rules, and the adequacy of the petitioner's explanations for his performance shortfall.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that adherence to the prescribed cost ratio is critical and lack of contravention to show cause notices leads to upholding of termination as lawful.
Result: Writ application dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for the following reliefs:
i. For quashing/ setting aside the termination notice dated22.11.2016 (Annexure 10) bearing reference no ECZ/Mktg issued under the signature of Zonal Manager, East Central Zone Office, Life Insurance Corporation of India.
ii. For quashing/ setting aside Rule 6 and 7 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Development (Revision of Certain Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2009 (Annexure 11).
iii. For staying the operation of termination order dated 22.11.2016 (Annexure 10) bearing reference no ECZ/Mktg issued under the signature of Zonal Manager, East Central Zone Office, Life Insurance Corporation of India during the pendency of this instant writ application.
iv. For the release of arrears of salary, travel allowance, dearness allowance, election duty allowance etc of the petitioner which is pending before the respondent Life Insurance Corporation.
3. Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Probationary Development Officer vide letter dated 09.05.2011 (Annexure-1) bearing reference no JDO/MKTG issued under the signature of Senior Divisional Manager with effect from 15.05.2011 wherein petitioner was posted at headquarters at Chhota Govindpur and the area of operation was Jamshedpur Branch.He submits that the appointment letter dated 09.05.2011 of the petitioner shall be governed specifically by the terms and conditions of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation, 1960 as amended from time to time. The appointment of the petitioner was confirmed vide letter dated 15.05.2013 (Annexure-2) and the w.e.f 01.06.2013 the basic pay scale of the petitioner was Rs.12,235/- per month and it was informed to the petitioner that all the other allowances corresponding to this basic pay would be as per rule. He further submits that vide show cause notice dated 30.11.2015 (Annexure- 3) being reference no. JDO/Sales issued under the provisions contained in sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Revision of Certain Terms and Conditions of Services) Rules, 2009 (rule under challenge) directed the petitioner to file its written reply/ representation within 15 days from the date of receipt of this letter. The petitioner represented before the Senior Divisional Manager of LIC at Jamshedpur and filed his detailed reply dated 14.12.2015 (Annexure-4 & 4/1) to the show cause dated 30.11.2015 and further stated that he had successfully achieved his target for the 1st year but in 2nd year petitioner fell short because petitioner’s father was seriously ill and was suffering from Cancer and for the treatment for his father he had gone to Vellore where his father was admitted for treatment. The petitioner sought time for setting his own target so that he would able to comply and achieve the target as per rules, 2009.
4. Learned counsel further submits that vide letter dated 14.01.2016 (Annexure-5) being reference no. JDO/Sales, the respondent LIC has stated that the petitioner has not replied any factual inaccuracies in respect of the figure necessitating any change in the appraisal of the work, thus the LIC is forwarding this matter to the Zonal Manager for decision. Thereafter, the respondent LIC has issued a show cause notice dated 22.02.2016 (Annexure-6) under sub rule 8 of Rule 6 read with Rule 7 of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Revision of Certain Terms and Conditions of Services) Rules, 2009 directing the petitioner to file reply and represent before the LIC within 15 days from date of receipt of notice dated 22.02.2016 and further the petitioner has been asked to submit its reply that why his services are not liable to be terminated in terms of Rules, 2009 as the performance of the petitioner for appraisal years has not been as per the given target.
5. He furt
