DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, J. - (1.) This bunch of writ petitions involves determination of common questions of fact and law, hence, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, writ petitions are being decided by a common judgment which follows: Heard Shri Abhinav Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri P. K. Khare, learned counsel representing the respondent-Corporation, namely, Life Insurance Corporation of India.
(2.) All the petitioners herein were engaged as Financial Services Executive in Life Insurance Corporation of India (herein after referred to as "the Corporation"). They have instituted these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the validity of the order passed by the competent authority, whereby their services as Financial Services Executive have been terminated purportedly in terms of Clause 23 of L.I.C. of India (Financial Services Executive Scheme) 2000 read with Clause 8 of the Contract of Appointment under which they were initially engaged.
(3.) Primary submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners challenging the impugned order terminating petitioners' services is that though their appointment was contractual and as such they do not have any right to continue on the post, however, the impugned termination order is stigmatic in nature and, thus, has adversely affected them in view of Clause 24 of the Scheme, 2007, which entails permanent disqualification for being enrolled as Financial Services Executive or even as a direct agent in case employment of contract is terminated on the ground of misconduct. Submission is that the impugned order being stigmatic in nature ought to have preceded an enquiry into the allegations levelled against the petitioners and the same could have been passed only after observing the principles of natural justice by giving notice and after conducting an enquiry and not in derogation thereof.;