- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6746 WP No. 24507 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 24507 OF 2015 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI S S CHANDRA KUMAR S/O S.M. SHESHANNA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, #82, 7TH CROSS, K.R.VANAM MYSORE-570 008. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ROHITH SWAMY, ADV.) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI-110001. 2. THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA YOGAKSHEMA BUILDING, JEEVAN BHIMA MARG, MUMBAI-400021 BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. THE ZONAL MANAGER THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, SOUTH CENTRAL ZONAL OFFICE, SAIFABAD, HYDERABAD-500063. 4. SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, "JEEVAN PRAKASH", PB NO.37 Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6746 WP No. 24507 of 2015 MYSORE-BANGALORE ROAD BANNIMANTAP, MYSORE-570015. 5. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR APPELLATE AUTHORITY THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, YOGAKSHEMA BUILDING, JEEVAN BHIMA MARG, MUMBAI-400021. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. APARNA L.V., CGC FOR R1 SRI. RAJESH SHETTY, ADV. FOR R2 TO R5) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER WITH HIS ERSTWHILE TEAM WITH CONTINUITY OF SERVICE, BACK WAGES AND ALL CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEFS AND SERVICE BENEFITS; QUASH THE ORDER OF TERMINATION VIDE ANNEXURE-E DATED 20.02.2014 ISSUED BY THE R3 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT ORAL ORDER The petitioner, a terminated Development Officer at the second respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short “LIC”) is before this Court, questioning the termination order under Annexure-E dated 20.02.2014 and also appellate order dated 07.11.2014 (Annexure-H) with a further direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service, backwages and all consequential reliefs. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6746 WP No. 24507 of 2015 2. The brief facts of the case are: The petitioner was appointed as Apprentice Development Officer by letter of appointment dated 05.11.2008/12.11.2008 and by letter dated 22.04.2010, the petitioner was confirmed as Development Officer. The order of appointment made it clear that the petitioner would be governed by Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation, 1960 and Life Insurance Corporation of India Development Officers (Revision of Certain Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1989 and Rules 2009 (for short “2009 Rules”). A show-cause notice dated 15.07.2013 was issued to the petitioner in terms of Rule 7 of 2009 Rules calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why his services shall not be terminated. The petitioner is said to have submitted his reply in terms of Annexure-B dated 01.08.2013. The respondent-LIC on consideration of the reply, by impugned order dated 20.02.2014 (Annexure-E) terminated the services of the petitioner as Development Officer in exercise of its power under Rule 7 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6746 WP No. 24507 of 2015 of 2009 Rules. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. Heard learned counsel Sri.Rohith Swamy for petitioner; Smt.Aparna L.V., learned CGC for Respondent No.1 and learned counsel Sri.Rajesh Shetty for respondent Nos.2 to 5. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that termination of the petitioner in terms of Rule 7 of 2009 Rules is wholly arbitrary and unreasonable. He further submits that the petitioner has provided sufficient business to the respondent-LIC and in spite of that, the respondents have taken a decision to terminate the petitioner without properly appreciating the reply submitted by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in his reply, the petitioner has specifically stated that he could be able to canvas a proposal for Rs.50,00,000/- sum assured with a premium of Rs.2,83,060/- and accordingly, Rs.50,000/- cash was paid and a cheque was issued for the balance premium - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6746 WP No. 24507 of 2015 amount. Unfortunately the said cheque was dishonored. Considering the said incident, the respondents have taken a harsh decision to terminate the petitioner. Learned Counsel would submit that the petitioner is not provided with proper opportunity and the termination is illegal. 5. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.Rajesh Shetty would submit that the termination of petitioner is in accordance with 2009 Rules. Further, learned counsel would invite attention of this Court to 2009 Rules and submits that Rule 7 permits the respondent-LIC to terminate the services of a Development Officer who fails to conform to the expense limit. Further, learned counsel would submit that the Rules require a show-cause notice to be issued providing an opportunity to show cause. Accordingly, the petitioner was issued with show-cause notice dated 15.07.2013 and on receiving the reply from the petitioner, the impugned order of termination was passed. Thus, learned counsel would submit that there is compliance with the rules. Further, learned counsel also refers to Rule 6(8) of 2009 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6746 WP No. 24507 of 2015 Rules and submits that notwithstanding anything where annual remuneration in any preceding year exceeds 38% of the eligible premium of that year and aggregate of the annual remuneration in the relevant year and the appraisal year immediately preceding the relevant year exceeds 38% of the aggregate of the eligible premium in those two years, services of such Development Officer is liable to be terminated in accordance with Rule 7 of 2009 Rules. Thus, he justifies the order of termination. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, the only point which falls for consideration is as to whether the impugned order of termination of the petitioner as Development Officer in LIC requires interference at the hands of this Court? 7. Answer to the above point would be in the negative for the following reasons: The petitioner was appointed as Development Officer of the respondent-LIC of India by letter of dated 05.11.2008/12.11.2008. The letter of appointment makes - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6746 WP No. 24507 of 2015 it clear that the petitioner would be governed by 1989 Rules and 2009 Rules. 8. Rule 7 of 2009 Rules reads as follows: “7. Termination of service in certain cases: (1) Where a Development Officer has failed to conform to the expense limit and where no opportunity to conform to such limit could be given under the provisions of rule 6, the Zonal Manager may terminate his services after giving him three months notice or salary in lieu thereof. Provided that the Development Officer shall be given an opportunity to show cause against such proposed termination of his service. (2) An appeal against an order passed under sub-rule (1) shall lie to the Managing Director and the provisions of rules 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45 of the Staff Rules shall, so far as may be, apply to any such appeal. (3) In the case of an appeal under sub- rule(2), the Managing Director shall consider the records of the case and pass orders on merits having regard to the circumstances of the case.” 9. Rule 6 (8) of 2009 Rules reads as follows: “6(8). Notwithstanding anything contained in sub rules (1) to (7) where the annual - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6746 WP No. 24507 of 2015 remuneration of a Development Officer in any preceding year (hereinafter in this sub-rule referred to as the “relevant year”) exceeds 38% of the eligible premium of that year and the aggregate of the annual remuneration in the relevant year and the appraisal year immediately preceding the relevant year exceeds 38% of the aggregate of the eligible premium in those two years, his services shall be liable to be terminated in accordance with rule 7.” 10. The above two rules would be relevant for the purpose of the present case, where annual remuneration of a Development Officer in any preceding year exceeds 38% of the eligible premium of that year and the aggregate of annual remuneration in the relevant year and the appraisal year immediately preceding the relevant year exceeds 38% of the aggregate and the eligible premium in those two years, such Development Officer shall be liable to be terminated in accordance with Rule 7 of 2009 Rules. 11. Rule 7 of 2009 Rules would state that where a Development Officer has failed to conform to the expense - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:6746 WP No. 24507 of 2015 limit and where no opportunity to conform to such limit could be given under the provisions of Rule 6, after giving 3 months notice or salary in lieu thereof, the Zonal Manager may terminate the services of such Development Officer. The Development Officer shall be entitled for an opportunity to show cause against such proposed termination of his services. 12. In the instant case, the petitioner is issued with show-cause notice dated 15.07.2013 (Annexure-R1) wherein it is stated as follows : “Your performance for the appraisal year ended on 31.03.2013 has been assessed as under: (A)(i) Expense Limit :: 21% (ii) Prescribed Expense Limit (Differential Cost Ratio) :: 21% (iii) Eligible Premium :: Rs.5,09,829.20 (v) Annual Remuneration :: Rs.2,74,547.32 (B) Cost Ration for the relevant appraisal Year on the basis of the Annual Remuneration :: 53.85% - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:6746 WP No. 24507 of 2015 (C) It is observed that your annual remuneration for the appraisal year exceeds 38% of the eligible premium of the year and the aggregate of the annual remuneration in the relevant year and the appraisal year immediately preceding the relevant appraisal year has exceeded 38% of the aggregate of the eligible premium in those two years. As a consequence, your services are liable to be terminated under sub-rule 8 of Rule 6 read with Rule 7 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Revision of Certain Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2009.” The petitioner was asked to submit his reply and the petitioner submitted his reply in terms of Annexure-B dated 01.08.2013 wherein the petitioner admitted that his aggregate of the two appraisals is 38.12% which is above the percentage prescribed under sub-Rule (8) of Rule 6 of 2009 Rules. 13. When the Rules provide for a particular procedure and if the authorities follow the said particular procedure, looking into the nature of employment, normally this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not interfere with such termination order. Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court could only examine the procedure of decision making and not the correctness - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:6746 WP No. 24507 of 2015 of the decision itself. In the instant case, the procedure followed to terminate the petitioner is in accordance with law. Whether the petitioner had brought the business as prescribed in terms of order of appointment is a matter to be decided by the respondent-LIC. This Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not examine the factual position. 14. In the above circumstances, I am of the view that there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE MPK CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37