WP/34106/2015 of Susan Ittyerah Vs The Union of India on 29 December 2023

ORDER:

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugnedOfhce Order dated 09.10.2015 passed by respondent No.3 revertingthe petitioner from the Cadre of Deputy Director to the Cadre ofSenior Assistant Director, without recording reasons therefor, ascontemplated under Regulation No. 1 1 of Insurance Regulatory andDevelopment Authority (Conditions of Service of Officers and otheremployees) Regulations, 200O (in short, 'IRDA RegulationsJ, asarbitrary, illegal and violative of all canons of law and [justice.]

2l Heard Ms. Gayatri, learned counsel appearing for the petitionerand Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for SriM.V. Suresh, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3, and Sri GadiPraveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor Generai of India, appearinglor respondent No. l.

3) Learned csounsel appearing for the petitioner's counsel hascontended that the petitioner was [promoted ]from the [post ]of SeniorAssistant Director to the post of Deputy Director [(Technical) ][and]placed on probation for a period of one year, uide [proceedings]No.IRDA/Admn./ORD/PER / 036/2/2015, dated [24.OL.2015, ][she was]reported to the duties as [Deputy Director ][on ][24.02.2075 and ][her ][pay]was hxed in the post of Deputy [Director ][(Technical ][Stream) ][uide]tI

PK, J

Procedure

proceedings dated 1o.o3.2o15. Learned counsel has contended thatthe respondents have reverted the petitioner from Deput5r Directorcadre to Senior Assistant Director Cadre, uid.e impugned proceedingsthe respondents have reverted the petitioner from Deput5r Directorcadre to Senior Assistant Director Cadre, uid.e impugned proceedingsdated O9.10.2O15, after completion of more than six months, withoutthere being any allegation or lault of the pctitioner and withoutissuing any notice. It is further contended that the impugned orderdated 09.10.2015 passed by the authorities reverting the petitioner tothe post of Senior Assistant Director without recording/ assigning anyissuing any notice. It is further contended that the impugned orderdated 09.10.2015 passed by the authorities reverting the petitioner tothe post of Senior Assistant Director without recording/ assigning anyreasons, as required under Regulation 11 of the IRDA Regulations,cannot be countenanced and therefore prayed to set aside theimpugned order. Learned counsel has placed reliance on thefollowing judgments in support of her contentions:following judgments in support of her contentions:

1) State Bank of India u. Palak Modil;

2) Ro.tnesh Kumar Choudhary v. Ind.irq. Go;ndhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patnd, Bihar2; and

3) Aurangabad. Municipal Corporation a. Jagantsir.

4l Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for thelearned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 has contended that thepetitioner was promoted to the post of Deputy Director on 24.O2.2015and posted to Research & Development Wing of Sectorial DevelopmentDepartment and the petitioner was placed on probation for a period of 1 12019) 17 S.C.R. 986

/

/-)

J

one year from the date [of ][promotion. ][The role ][of ][the ][Deputy Director]is supervisory in nature [and ][senior ][in ][position ][too' ][Learned ][Senior]Counsel has contended [that ][the ][petitioner ][was reverted ][to ][the ][post ][of]Senior Assistant [Director ][by ][invoking ][Regulation ][No' ][1 ][1 ][of ][the ][IRDA]Relulations and the [respondents ][are ][empowered ][to ][do ][so ][Hence,]there is no irregularit5r in [reverting ][the ][petitioner' ][It ][is ][further]contended by the [learned Senior Counsel ][that ][the ][decision ][for]reversion of the [petitioner ][was taken after careful consideration ][of ][all]releva.nt reports on the [functioning of ][the petitioner ][received ][from ][the]Reporting Officer and the [overall In-charge ][of ][the ][Department i'e']HOD and a series of [mails ][exchanged between ][the petitioner and ][the]Reporting Ofhcer [regarding the ][work ][in ][the Department ][and guidance]in execution [of ][various tasks ][assigned ][to ][the ][petitioner' ][In]aspects the assessment of [the ][Reporting ][Officer, ][the ][petitioner could ][hardly]complete/ contribute to [any ][of ][the ][targets ][of the ][R&D ][Wing ][and ][the]Reporting Officer also [tried ][to ][counsel ][- ][the ][petitioner ][on ][various]occasions to make [her ][to ][understand the role ][that ][she ][has ][to ][play ][as]a Supervisor, but in vain. [Based ][on the ][performance ][and ][attendance]of the petitioner, during [the ][relevant ][live ][months, ][the ][HOD ][had]conhrmed that the [petitioner ][was ][not ][capable ][of supervising the work]and staff in the area [of ][work ][assigned ][to ][her' ][The ][ED ][of ][the]Department also reported [that ][the petitioner has not ][measured upto]requirement. Learned [Senior ][Counsel ][has ][submitted ][that ][all ][the]

PK, J

wP 34106 20l5

above factors were reported to the HR Department,which analysedthe reports received from the HOD and trD, and put up a detailedanalysedthe reports received from the HOD and trD, and put up a detailedofhce note dated 09. 10.2O 15 to the Competent Authority forCompetent Authority forconsidering invocation of Regulation No.1 i of the IRDA Regulations.Upon careful analysis of the reports of the Department on thefunctioning of the petitioner, the Competent Authority had passed theDepartment on thefunctioning of the petitioner, the Competent Authority had passed theimpugned order. Hence, the respondents are justified in passing thetmpugned order reverting the petitioner from thecadre of Deputytmpugned order reverting the petitioner from thecadre of DeputyDirector to the cadre of Senior Assistant Director,for the smoothfunctioning of the Department.functioning of the Department.

5) Learned Senior Counsel has further contended that the HODbased on the performance and attendance of the petitioner during thetime of her reporting to him, has confirmed that she was not capabreof supervising the work and staff in the area of work assigned to herand therefore requested to provide immediate substitute in her placefor smooth functioning of the R & D wing. [t is further contendedthat the petitioner was also absent for a number of days, without anyinformation/intimation during the period of probation leaving impacton the performance of the office and further contended that she wasunauthorizedly absent for 17 days during March, 20 15 to August,2015, besides availing sick leave for eight days and approved casualleave for eight days. Further, on a number of days, the petitioner hasnot marked attendarce in biometric. Since the petitioner has ,//'

r'a:

absented unauthorizedly from duties without any [information, ][a]charge memo was also issued to the petitioner. [Further, ]after [the]petitioner has taken the charge as Deputy Director, the [Executive]Director, who oversee the Department, had called for a [meeting ]of theofficials of the SDD in his Cabin on 13.04.2O15 at [1.OO ][pm., ][to which]the petitioner has not attended, in spite of intimation, [for which, ][the]petitioner has pleaded that she has no advance intimation or email.Vide letter dated 16.04.2015, the Senior Joint Director ha.s alsosought an explanation from the [petitioner ]for [not ]attending [the ][said]meeting, which amounts to insubordination in [terms of ][Regulation ][29]of IRDA Regulations. Since the explanation submitted [by ][the]petitioner was not convincing, a charge memo was also issued to thepetitioner on 08.O9.2Oi5, however, the learned Senior Counselsubmitted that the said charge memo is nothing to do with the [lis ][in]the present Writ Petition. It is further contended that the [petitioner]had not submitted the self appraisal part of Annual [performance]Appraisal, which is supposed to be submitted by every Officer, [for ][the]years 2O09-2O1O, 201O-2Ol 1, 20l1-2O12, 20l2-2O13 arrd 2073-2014.Irarned Senior Counsel has vehemently contended that [after]recording reasons in the office order dated 09.10.2015, the [third]respondent was [justihed ]in reverting the petitioner from the cadre ofDeputy Director to Senior Assistant Director cadre by invoking PK, JwP 34106 20ts Regulation 1r of the IRDA Regulations. Therefore, rhe learned SeniorCounsel has prayed to dismiss the Writ petition.Counsel has prayed to dismiss the Writ petition.

6) This Court has taken note of the submissions made bv therespecttve counsel and perused the material on record

7) A perusal of the impugned order dated 09.lO.2OlS disclosesthat the said order was passed by the third respondent by invokingRegulation 1 I of IRDA Regulations, which reads as under:

"An officer and otheremployee promoted from one grade toanother may be revertedduring the probationery penod withoutnotice by the competentautlrority after recording the reasonstherefor."

8) From the above the above above Regulation it is crystal clear that theclear that thethat thetherespondent authorities got ample power to revert any probationaryemployee, but however, subject to recording of reasons. Therefore,the contention of the petitioner that she was not served with anynotice prior to passing of the impugned order, does not stand to thescrutiny of this Court.

From the above the above above Regulation it is crystal clear that theclear that thethat thethe

9) Further, pursuant to the directions of this Court, therespondent authorities have produced the original record pertainingto the impugned order dated 09.1O.201S, a perusal of r.r,hich disclosesthat Office Note dated 09.lO.20lS has been appended tothetmpugned order wherein the reasons were recordedextensively (

I

referring to the poor performance of the petition er uiz., inadequacy insupervisory skills in leading and guiding her subordinates, frequentuninformed/unauthorized frequentuninformed/unauthorized absence,etc., which necessitated theauthorities to look for a suitablesubstitute in the place of theauthorities to look for a suitablesubstitute in the place of thepetitioner for the smooth functioning of the R&D Wing. When that beso, the ground urged by the petitioner in attacking the impugnedorder i.e. be refl of reasons, is unsustainable.the smooth functioning of the R&D Wing. When that beso, the ground urged by the petitioner in attacking the impugnedorder i.e. be refl of reasons, is unsustainable.

10) coming to the judgments relied by the petitioner, this court isof the considered view that they are distinguishable on facts of thepresent case. The case in pqlo.k Mod.i (referred supra) pertains totermination of a probationer whereas in the present case thepetitioner was only reverted during the probationary period. The casein Ratnesh Kumar (reJerred supra) pertains to dismissal of anemployee from service and therefore the said judgment also has noapplication to the facts of the present case. F,urth er, Jagq.nt,s c([se(reJeted supror) pertains to reversion of an employee withoutfurnishing a notice to show cause or giving an opportunity of beingheard. But, in the present case, Regulation 1 1 of the IRDARegulations empowers the authority to waive the issuance of notice,subject to recording of reasons, which condition has been compliedwith by authorities in the case on hand, as discussed in the foregoingparagraph. Therefore, the judgments relied by the learned counsel forthe petitioner are of no avail to her.

PK, J

B

wP 34 t06 20I 5

1 1) [n view of the above discussion, the Writ petition is devoid ofmerits and the same is liable to be dismissed.merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

12), Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs SD/. P.Ch. NAGABHUSHAMBAASSISTANT REGIS RARASSISTANT REGIS RAR

//TRUE COPY//SECTION OFFICER

To,

'1. One CC to M/s. GAYATHRI, Advocate [OPUC]

2. One CC to SRI M.V.SURESH, Advocate TOPUCI

3. One CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLIC|TOR GENERALOF lNDlA, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad TOPUCIOF lNDlA, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad TOPUCI

4. Two CD CopiesBSRGJP ^v

4. Two CD Copies

I

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2911212023

ORDERWP.No.34106 of 2015

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION,

WITHOUT COSTS

(1'rr[E ][STAtrT:-](- [/a,](]()a E [FES ][r'.*i]+Opspric[ji:'-]

II