S.K. Datta, J. - (1.) This is an application by an employee of the Sterling General Insurance Company Ltd. (Respondent No. 1) for a writ in the nature of mandamus forbearing the Respondents from holding any enquiry regarding further retention of the Petitioner in his service with the above company, as contemplated in the letter dated August 31, 1971, of the Custodian of the company (Respondent No. 2) and also for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the said letter An interim order was passed on October 22, 1971, granting leave to the Respondents to proceed with the proposed investigation but restraining them from publishing or giving any effect to the result of the investigation. The Petitioner's case is that he was appointed as Inspector of the company in terms of the letter of appointment dated February 14,1957 (annex. B to the petition). The Petitioner, though appointed as Inspector, was assigned the job of organising business in Bihar and West Bengal. The Petitioner commenced his work in 1958 and went on discharging his duty satisfactorily and in 1967, his annual business was Rs. 5 lacs while his salary rose to Rs. 1,115. The Petitioner was allowed to appoint agents and workers and was treated as Supervisor since 1961, recruited inspectors and supervised their work. The Petitioner soon fell a victim to factionalism as a result of envy due to sharp rise of his business and his salary was cut down by Rs. 650 from April, 1968, mala fide without assigning any reason which the Petitioner received with protest under force of circumstances. The Petitioner contended that he was entitled to and given credit of the business of his inspectors and there was no question of personal business to be procured by him. The Petitioner further claimed to be appointed as Chief Organiser, but the company verbally agreeing did not make the appointment.
(2.) On May 13, 1971, an Ordinance called the General Insurance (Emergency Provisions) Ordinance, 1971, came into force. By this Ordinance on the said date the management of undertakings of all insurers vested in the Central Government. This Ordinance was repealed on June 17, 1971, by the General Insurance (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1971, (XVII of 1971) and it was provided therein that the said Act was to be deemed to have come into force on May 13, 1971. On the basis of the said Ordinance it appears that a custodian of the company was appointed who is the said Respondent No. 2 in this Rule.
(3.) The Petitioner during May 25, 1971, to August 11, 1971, made representations to the company as also the Minister of Finance of the Central Government about his appointment as Chief Organiser of the company which the company failed to make contrary to assurances. On the letter to the Minister the Custodian in reply informed the Petitioner by letter dated August 31, 1971, that there was no evidence in the company's record about the allegations made by the Petitioner and that each field officer or inspector would stand or fall according to the business he produced. It was stated further that the Petitioner's performance did not justify his emoluments. In the letter the cost ratio for the past few years was disclosed and the Custodian expressed surprise why the Petitioner's service was not terminated so long. The Custodian further informed the Petitioner that he was sending a copy of the letter to the Senior Regional Manager of the company at Calcutta to investigate and take necessary steps in the matter. Against this order the Petitioner has obtained this Rule.;