AMARESHWAR SAHAY, J. - (1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6.9.2002, passed in CWJC No. 2534 of 1999 (R), whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ application and has set aside the order of termination of the writ petitioner from the post of Apprentice Development Officer, Life Insurance Corporation of India, contained in Annexure -6 to the writ application and also directed the respondent -Life Insurance Corporation of India of consider the case of the writ petitioner for his appointment on the post of Probationary Development Officer.
(2.) THE brief facts are that the sole respondent, namely, Mohammad Khurshid, filed CWJC No. 2534 of 1999 (R), before this Court, stating, inter alia, that pursuant to the advertisement, he applied for recruitment to the post of Apprentice Development Officer. After qualifying in the written test and the interview he was selected for being appointed to the said post and accordingly letter dated 30.11.1992 issued under the signature of the Marketing Manager of Life Insurance Corporation of India was received by him regarding his selection on the said post and he was called for medical test. Therefore, by letter dated 3/16.12.1992, he was informed that he has been selected as an Apprentice Development Officer under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (ADO) Recruitment Scheme Act, 1991. It was mentioned therein that he would be taken as an Apprentice for a period of 9 months, commencing from 9.12.1992. Nine months period was divided in three parts of training i.e. Class Room Training for two months, Branch Administration Training for one month and Field Training for six months. It was also mentioned in the said letter that after completion of Class room and Branch Administrative Training there would be a Field Training in which his performance would be assessed on the basis of (i) Individual house -hold survey (ii) Canvassing prospects for Agency recruitment, (iii) Servicing Jobs and (iv) Visiting V.I.Ps. It was further mentioned that after completion of the Field Training for 5 -1/2 months, there would be a written test for examining the knowledge acquired during the entire period of training. It was further mentioned in the said letter that during the nine months period of Apprentice he may avail leave for not more than 11 days, but not more than 5 days of such leave at a time, with the previous sanction of the Competent Authority. The further case of the writ petitioner was that he joined the Sales Training Centre at Patna on 18.12.1992 and completed the class room training and Branch Administration Training at Garhwa Branch of Life Insurance Corporation of India. It was also stated that by letter dated 9.7.1993, he was informed by the corporation that he will be completing 8 -1/2 months Apprentice period on 23.8.1993 and then he had to appear in the written test to be conducted by the said training centre, Patna and accordingly the writ petitioner appeared in the said written test and passed successfully. All of a sudden the writ petitioner received a letter dated 5/8.2.1994 issued under the signature of Senior Divisional Manager by which he was informed that since his performance was not found to be satisfactory as Apprentice Development Officer, he was being terminated with immediate effect. The said order contained in letter dated 5/8.2.1994 was challenged in the said writ application on the ground that it was arbitrary and illegal as was in violation of the rules of natural justice as the writ petitioner was never served with any notice to show cause nor he was given a chance of being heard nor he was provided with a copy of adverse report, if any, against him and therefore, the order terminating his service as Apprentice Development Officer was liable to be quashed. Life Insurance Corporation of India filed counter affidavit and supplementary affidavit stating, inter alia, that the writ petitioner was unauthorisedly absent from 16.4.1993 to 15.7.1993 i.e. for three months during the period of training without any leave and further that the writ petitioner did not submit the house hold -survey and Agency prospect reports. It was further stated in the counter affidavit that by letter dated 25.6.1993 the writ petitioner was asked to file show cause as to why he was unauthorisedly absent since 16.4.1993 without seeking permission from any corner. It is further stated that performance of the writ petitioner was not satisfactory and therefore, he was rightly terminated from the post of Apprentice Development Officer.
(3.) THE learned Single Judge also called for original record of the Corporation and after perusal held that since the writ petitioner was allowed to appear in the written test, which he successfully passed and thereafter, the letter of termination was issued, without giving notice to show cause, the action of the respondent, was arbitrary and unjustified.;