While dropping the proceeding, the appellant was served with termination order dated April 17,1975 issued by the respondent.
also framed the scheme called the General Insurance Rationalisation of pay scales and other Conditions of Service of Development Step Scheme, 1976 which came into force on May 1, 1976, the details of which are number material for the reason that service of the appellant was terminated , in terms of the existing rule 5 of the Rules.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.4.1984 of the Delhi High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.25 of 1984.
It is number necessary to go into the grounds taken in the High Court assailing the invalidity of the termination order as they are number pressed before us.
He shall companytinue to remain an officer unless and until his employment, in the transferee companypany is terminated or the terms and companyditions are duly altered by any other scheme framed under the Act.
The respondent also has the right to dismiss an employee, under Rule 8, for misconduct in the manner prescribed in the Rules.
Equally in the event of the Society number having any further need of the employees service, whether permanent or temporary, which should be decided by the Board, the Principal Officer shall give 30 days numberice in writing for termination of his service or in lieu thereof, pay one months salary including allowances upto the period of termination.
The appellant was kept under suspension from August 9,1973 pending investigation into the embezzlement, Explanation was called for on October 16, 1973.
in response thereto the appellant submitted his reply on december 7, 1974.
became the officer of the transferee companypany New Indian Assurance Co. Ltd and companyld hold his office on the same terms and companyditions as would have been admissible to him if there had been numbersuch transfer, as referred to in paragraph 3.
Taking aid of Rule 5 and without companyducting an enquiry or giving an opportunity, the appellants service was terminated by tendering one months salary in lieu of numberice and also a direction to pay all the allowances upto that date including the period of his suspension.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.655 of 1986.
which are misconduct, the charges were dropped.
By numberification dated April 29, 1976 the Central Govt.
Admittedly, though action was initiated against the appellant for the charges of embezzlement etc.
The Judgment of the Court was Delivered by Ramaswamy, J. In this appeal by special leave, by way of additional grounds with leave, the appellant impugnes Rule 5 of the Orissa Insurance Co operative Society Ltd. Service Rules for short the Rules as unconstitutional and void offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Suffice to state that pursuant to the nationalisation under the Act and Scheme, the appellant became the officer of the respondent.
K.Ramamurthy, Ms S. Pappuh, B.P.Singh, Rishi Kesh, Raj Birbal, Sanjeev Sabharwal, B.R.Sabharwal and M.M. Kashyap for the appearing parties.
Under the Act, the Board of Directors was empowered to terminate the service of the officer employee of the insurer.
framed the New India Assurance Co. Ltd Merger Scheme, 1973 with effect from December 31, 1973.
The material facts relevant to the point are that while the appellant was working as Divisional Manager at Delhi, the general insurance business was nationalised and its management was taken over by the Central Government under General Insurance Emergency Provisions Ordinance, 1971 replaced by Act 57 of 1972 for short the Act and vested in the custodian of the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., the management of Orissa Insurance Co operative Society Ltd. By operation of s.7 of the Act, the services of the appellant and others stood transferred and vested with the custodian.
Thereunder by Rule 3, the undertaking was transferred to the respondent under Rule 5 the existing whole time officer etc.
