LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA Vs. BIPUL BHARALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal has been preferred by the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Gauhati, hereinafter referred to as the Corporation, against the judgment and order dated 19.8.96 passed by the Learned Single Judge in Misc. Case No. 1035 of 1996 (review) arising out of C.R. No. 1829 of 1994.

(2.) The admitted factual position is that the respondent was appointed as Development officer on certain terms and conditions including the minimum business to be secured by him as specified by in para 9 of the appointment letter dated 28.11.88. and was placed on probation for a period of one year. Because of his unsatisfactory performance the period of probation was extended for another one year with effect from 1.12.89. On expiry of the extended period of probation, his service was confirmed with effect from 1.12.90 vide letter dated 28.12.90 keeping all Bother terms and conditions set in the appointment letter undisturbed. On 11th November, 1993, the Corporation issued a notice calling upon the respondent to show cause as to why his service would not be terminated for his unsatisfactory performance. The Corporation, eventually, on consideration of his reply, terminated his service with effect from 7.5.94. The respondent challenged the order of termination in Civil Rule No. 1829/94. The learned Single judge vide order dated 24.7.94. passed on consent quashed the termination order and also directed the Corporation to appoint the respondent in Class III (Administrative work) within a period of 15 days. The Corporation made an abortive attempt to rescind the aforesaid order in Writ Appeal No. 508 of 1995. The writ appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court with the observation that proper course would be to move the Learned Single Judge for review of the order, if the consent was given under some mistake of law. Accordingly, an application for review(Misc. Case. No.1035 of 96) was filed. But the said application was also dismissed on the ground that the impugned order was passed on consent. Being aggrieved the Corporation has preferred this appeal.

(3.) We have heard the argument advanced on behalf of. both the parties, perused the grounds taken in appeal and the documents made available on record.