IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.3147 OF 2018 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
RAJARAMA L.
S/O. H.J.LAKSHMINARAYANA HINDU, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT NO.31/5, 2ND CROSS 7TH MAIN ROAD, KAMALA NEHRU EXTENSION TRIVENI ROAD, YASHAWANTHAPUR BANGALORE – 560 022 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI A.V.SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. L.I.C. MUTUAL FUND AMC LTD. INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE BUILDING 4TH FLOOR, (OPP) CHURCH GATE STATION MUMBAI – 400 020.
2. THE AREA MANAGER L.I.C. MUTUAL FUND AMC LTD.
HUBLI AREA OFFICE, L.I.C. BUILDING. LAMINGTON ROAD HUBLI – 5 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAMACHANDRA G. BHAT, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 25.04.2016 (ANNEXURE – ‘O’) PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1, AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Though the matter has come up for orders, with the consent of the learned counsels on both the sides, the matter is heard and disposed of finally.
2. The petitioner joined the services of the first respondent as an Executive Assistant. Respondent No.1, in the year 2011 was renamed as LIC Nomura Mutual Fund Asset Management Company Limited. On 01.05.2015, the petitioner was posted as a Relationship Manager in Sales and Marketing Department and certain targets were fixed. The respondents had been pulling-up the petitioner for not reaching the target. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the target was also reduced at the request of the petitioner.
3. On 11.03.2016, the petitioner was served with a memo, once again remanding the petitioner that he had not reached the target inspite of reduction in the target and therefore, it was communicated to the petitioner that he would be under watch for a period of one month i.e., from 11.03.2016 to 11.04.2016. It was also communicated that if he fails to improve, Disciplinary Enquiry would be initiated against him.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner tried to explain to the respondents about the inherent impediment in reaching the target, the respondents terminated the services of the petitioner without holding any enquiry and issuing any charges. The order of termination dated 25.04.2016 is now challenged in this writ petition.
5. The respondents have filed their objections.
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that though there was an alternative remedy for the petitioner to approach the Chief Executive Managing Director under the Staff Regulations, the petitioner has approached this Court and therefore, the petition may be rejected on that ground. It is also submitted that under Rule 9 of Jeevan Bima Sahayog Asset Management Company Limited Staff Rules 1994, (‘the Rules’ for short) the Competent Authority was empowered to determine the services of any permanent employee at any time on giving him three months notice or salary in lieu thereof if he belongs to Group-A and one month notice or salary in lieu thereof if he belongs to any other group. It was also submitted that vide communication dated 11.03.2016, the petitioner had acknowledged that he noticed the contents of the letter, that if the expectation of the company is not met, he would be subjected to further disciplinary action including termination of employment. Therefore, learned counsel for the respondents submits that no fault can be found in the order of termination issued by the respondents.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record a judgment of High Court of Uttarakhand in the case of Vijay Pratap Singh vs. L.I.C. Nomura Mutual Fund Asset Management Company Limited and others in Writ Petition (S/B) No.236/2014 where under similar circumstances, the order of termination issued by the very same respondents has been set aside. It was submitted that the very same objection including the preliminary objection that the respondent is not the State falling within the ambit of Article 12 of Constitution of India was also considered and negated. The petition filed by the employee was allowed while holding that the employee could not have been terminated from service without issuing a show cause notice or conducting any regular enquiry. Therefore, similar order is sought at the hands of this Court.
7. Heard the learned counsel and perused the writ papers and the decision in the case of Vijay Pratap Singh (supra).
8. The contention of the respondents that there is no need for conducting a Departmental Enquiry before terminating the service of the petitioner, cannot be countenanced. Rule 36 of Jeevan Bima Sahayog Asset Management Company Limited Staff Rules 1994 would provide that any one or more of the penalties could be imposed by the disciplinary authority on an employee who displays negligence, inefficiency or indolence in the discharge of his duties. Therefore, if the respondents found that the petitioner is inefficient, the rule provides that an enquiry had to be held against the petitioner and the Disciplinary Authority was empowered to impose penalty as prescribed under Rule 36 of the Rules. It is has pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that even in the communication dated 11.03.2016 the respondents had in fact warned the petitioner that if he does not reach the target, disciplinary action would be initiated and he would be terminated from service. Therefore, the respondents were duty bound to follow the due process of law, before terminating the service of the petitioner. The action of the respondents therefore, is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and the provision of rules governing disciplinary action against the delinquent officer. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the technical argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner could have approached the Appellate Authority should also fail.
9. In the light of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order requires to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The writ petition is stands allowed.
No order as to costs.
The learned counsel for the respondents submits that liberty may be reserved to the respondents to initiate action in accordance with law against the petitioner.
While granting such liberty to the respondents, the respondents are directed to complete the Departmental Enquiry within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Since the order of termination has been set aside by this order, the petitioner is legitimately entitled to be reinstated. However, since a direction issued to the respondents to complete the enquiry proceedings within a period of two months, the respondents shall treat the petitioner as a delinquent officer under suspension. All other consequences will follow in accordance with law.
SD/- JUDGE KLV