S.N.SAHAI - (1.) THE petitioner Ashok Kumar Sahai was appointed as Apprentice Development Officer by order dated 16th March, 1985 passed by the Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation, Lucknow. THE appointment was made in the beginning for one year with effect from 20th March, 1985 on payment of Rs. 600/- as stipend per month. It was provided that if the work and conduct was found to be satisfactory, then the petitioner on completing the period of apprenticeship will be appointed as Development Officer on probation on a monthly salary of Rs. 250/- and other allowances. It was further provided that the services of the petitioner may be terminated during the period of apprenticeship without any notice and that the appointment will be subject to the provisions contained in the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Apprentice Development Officers) Recruitment Scheme, 1980. THE services of the petitioner as Apprentice Development Officer were terminated by order dated 11th March, 1986, Annexure-3 with immediate effect. Aggrieved from the order of termination of his services, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
(2.) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order of termination is an order of dismissal, which is pumtive in nature and has been passed in an illegal and arbitrary manner without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to show cause against the same. The preamble to the above mentioned Scheme shows that appointments to the cadre of Development Officers in the service of the Life Insurance Corporation may be made from time to time in accordance with the provisions contained in the Scheme. The expression "Apprentice Development Officer", means a person recruited under the Scheme for Training and subsequent appointment to the cadre of Development Officers and includes an employee apprentice. Any person who has obtained a Bechelor's degree of an approved Indian or Foreign University or who has passed an examination recognised by the Corparation as equivalent thereto, including any such person who is already an employee or an agent of the Corporation, may be recruited as an Apprentice Development Officer. Para 6.1 of the Scheme provides that an Apprentice Development Officer other than an employee Apprentice may be discharged at any time without notice or without assigning any reason whatsoever. Para 6.2 provides that an employee Apprentice may be reverted to his previous post at any time without any notice or without assigning any reasons whatsoever Para 7-1 says that satisfactory completion of apprentice period, the Apprentice Development Officer will be appointed as a Development Officer on probation in the scale of pay applicable to Development Officers, Grade-1, under the Staff Regulations as may be provided from time to time. In addition to the basic pay, a probationer will be paid such allownaces as are applicable to the Development Officers on probation in accordance with the Staff Regulations. The impugned order does not contain any reason for terminating the services of the petitioner. It is, however, stated in para 16 of the counter- affidavit that the petitioner's business performance, work habit, behaviour etc. were not found satisfactory In support of this fact, the particulars of the petitioner's business performance during the period from 20th March, 1985 to 1st March, 1986 have been given. In para 18 of the counter-affidavit it is clearly stated that the petitioner's business performance was not found satisfactory and hence his services were terminated as per terms and conditions, contained in appointment letter dated 16th March, 1985. This fact has been reiterated in para 22 of the counter-affidavit and it is stated that the services of the petitioner were terminated because of his poor performance and unsuitability for the job. From the averments made in the counter-affidavit it is clear that the services of the petitioner have been terminated by way of punishment on account of unsatisfactory work. It has been no where stated that any opportunity was given to the petitioner in respect of his work and conduct, which is said to be unsatisfactory. The impugned order has, therefore, been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner has stated that no target was ever fixed by the department nor any minimum standard was laid down in respect of business to be done by an Apprentice. He has also stated that he was not allowed to work for the full period beginning from 20th March, 1985 to 1st March, 1986 and as such the business given by him cannot be treated for the whole period It is stated that the petitioner was without work from 17th July, 1985 after being posted on 26th June, 1985 and during this short spell he gave a business of more than rupees 4 lakhs, which no Development Officer has given anv such business in the past in the area in which the petitioner was posted. If the petitioner had been given opportunity of showing cause, it may be that he would have been able to satisfy the departmental authorities that his work and conduct was good and his services were not liable to be terminated. The provisions of para 6.1 of the aforesaid Scheme, relating to the termination of the services of an Apprentice Develpment Officer without assigning any reason are unreasonable and violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution as in actual working it may lead to arbitrariness. An Apprentice Development Officer is not a mere Apprentice who enters the service of the Life Insurance Corporation merely for the purpose of learning work or taking training but his appointment is necessarily linked to the appointment of Development Officer. On satisfactory completion of apprenticeship period, the Apprentice Development Officer has a right under para 7.1 of the Scheme to be considered for appointment as a Development Officer. The Life Insurance Corporation has been empowered under section 23 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 to employ such number of persons as it thinks fit for the purpose of enabling it to discharge its function. The Corporation is also empowered under section 48 (2) of the Act to make rules regarding the terms and conditions of service of the employees and agents of the Corporation including those who becomes employees and agents of the Corporation on the appointment date under this Act. The aforesaid Scheme is, therefore, related to the statutory power of the Corporation under section 23 to employee Development Officers. Therefore, the services of an Apprentice Development Officer cannot be terminated in an arbitrary manner and it will be violative of the principles of natural justice if the services of an Apprentice Development Officer are terminated without affording any opportunity of showing cause to him on the ground that his services are not satisfactory. Under the circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained and it is liable to be quashed.
(3.) THE writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 11th March, 1986, contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition is here by quashed. THE petitioner will be allowed to complete the period of apprenticeship and will thereafter be considered for appointment as Development Officer in accordance with law. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. Petition allowed.;