COMMON ORDER:

As the issue involved in all these cases is one and the same, these writ petitions are decided by way of a common order.

(a). W.P. NO. 8629 of 2015:

The present writ petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“…to issue Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari call for the record pertaining to orders dt.24.12.2014 passed by Respondent No.3 and set-aside the same by holding that the orders are in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and in violation of Art 12, 14, 16, 19, 21 and 311-A of Constitution of India…”

(b). W.P. NO. 480 of 2015:

The present writ petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order of termination dt.14.82.014 issued by the 3rd respondent as confirmed by the Appellate Authority dt.26.12.2014 and also consequential relieving letter dt.31.12.2014 issued by the Branch Manager, Adoni is wholly illegal, arbitrary and violative of article 14, 16, 21 of Constitution of India apart from being violative of principles of natural justice and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled to be continued in service with all consequently benefits…”

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner being a qualified graduate, was appointed as a Development Officer in the 2nd respondent Corporation, after duly being qualified in written test and as well as interview conducted by the 2nd respondent. On 06.11.2010, vide appointment orders issued by the 4th respondent, wherein the petitioner was initially appointed as Probation Development Officer and he was entrusted with the Branch Officer, LIC Ananthapur branch II vide code number 93665 for regular correspondence. During the probation period, the scale fixed for the petitioner was Rs.11535- 700(2)-12935(2)-14585-840(17)-28865. During the probation period, the petitioner was entrusted with the business target at Rs.12,00,000/- for confirmation of his job. The said target was reached by the petitioner, and accordingly, his probation period was confirmed on 23.05.2012.

3. The Government of India in exercise of powers confirmed under Sec. 48 (1), (2) (CC) of Life Insurance Corporation Act 1956, framed the Rules i.e., The Life Insurance Corporation of India Development officer (Revision of certain terms and Conditions of service) Rules 2009, (herein after refers as the Rule-2009 for brevity) As per the Rules-2009 the Petitioner has to limit the expenditure at 21 % for calculating the performance of appraisal. The percentage of expense limit calculate basing on the total Annual salary divided by total Collected premium multiplies to 100. It is submitted that as per the Rule 5 of the Rules stipulated for eligibility of the increments that:

"Increments shall ordinarily be drawn by a Development Officer as a matter of course in accordance with rules 56 of the staff rules, unless he has reached the maximum of the grade or the increments cannot be allowed in accordance with rule 6 or it is withheld as a disciplinary measure under rule 39 of the staff rules".

On reading of the Rule, unless a development officer reaches the maximum of the grade, increment to the officer shall not be granted.

4. On 11.06.2014, the 4th respondent issued a performance report for the appraisal year end on 31.05.2014, and also directed to show cause under rule 6(8) and Read with Rule 7 of the Rules, 2009, why his services shall not be terminated. In the said show cause notice, the 4th respondent has determined the proposed punishment yet to be given to the petitioner calling for explanation from the petitioner only as formality. For which, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 16.08.2014, explaining the reasons for not reaching the cost ratio and also explained with regard to the drought conditions prevailing in the Ana