PATNA, India, Sept. 29 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on Aug. 29:
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief(s):-
"(i) For issuance of a writ/s, order/s, direction/s. preferably in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 4.10.2021 passed by Senior Divisional Manager-cum-Disciplinary Authority, Begusarai (respondent no 4) whereby and whereunder the concerned authority, in exercise of powers conferred under LIC of India (Agents) Regulation, 2017 has been pleased to terminate the agency of the petitioner under rule 19(1)(b) with forfeiture of all commission payable to him under rule 19(2) of the said regulation.
(ii) For issuance of a writ/s, order/s, direction/s preferably in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 9.10.2023 passed by Zonal Manager-cumAppellate Authority, East Central Zonal Office, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Patna (respondent no 2) whereby and whereunder the concerned authority has been pleased to uphold the decision of Senior Divisional Manager (respondent no 4) passed on 4.10.2021 and the appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected.
(iii) For issuance of a writ/s, order/s, direction/s preferably in the nature of Mandamus directing and commanding the respondent authority to reinstate the license of the petitioner forthwith and grant/pay him gratuity which he is entitled to as he has completed 60 years of age and has applied for the. same. Further the respondent concerned may be directed to start paying him renewable commission which he is legally entitled to.
(iv) For any other relief/s which the petitioner is found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been working as an agent of the respondent-LIC for more than 31 years without any complaint from any quarters. That the petitioner has received a letter dated 31.10.2020 seeking his explanation as to why action should not be initiated against the him under Regulation 16 Sub Regulation 1(b) of the LIC of India (Agents) Regulations, 2017. As per the allegation made in the said letter, it is stated that the Claims Department, Begusarai DO had informed the competent authority that the DODRC has repudiated the death claim of Policy Nos. 831489148 (S.A. 5000000) & 831489149 (S.A. 10000000) on the grounds of suppression of material facts by the petitioner regarding the illness of the insured at the time of submitting the proposal of the policy. That the petitioner knowing fully well that the insured was sick has supported the act of fraud at the time of proposal of the policy. That after receipt of the show cause notice dated 30.10.2020, the petitioner has given a suitable reply on 19.12.2020 stating that the petitioner is not at fault and he was not aware of the illness of the proposed policy holder. That the proposal was weighed by the Branch Manager and the Development Officer who have visited the policy holder. Thereafter, vide letter dated 17.05.2021, another show cause notice was issued to the petitioner under signature of Senior Division Manager, Begusarai alleging that the petitioner had acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Corporation and, therefore, his agency is liable to be terminated with forfeiture of renewal commission. The petitioner has submitted his explanation to the show cause notice dated 17.05.2021 on 23.06.2021 stating that he was not at fault and that he has been rendering his services to the Corporation for the last more than 31 years without any blemish. That in case any mistake has occurred, the same is inadvertent and the petitioner may be excused duly taking into consideration his old age and length of service. Though the petitioner has given a suitable explanation to the show cause notice dated 17.05.2021, the authority without considering the same in a proper perspective has passed the final order of termination of the agency with forfeiture of all the commission payable to him vide order dated 04.10.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner has again made a representation dated 29.10.2021 to the authority concerned to reconsider the order passed on 04.10.2021 but there was no response from the authority. Thereafter, the Administrative Officer (Marketing), Regional Officer, Patna vide letter dated 25.05.2022 informed the petitioner that if he is aggrieved by the order of termination of agency dated 04.10.2021, the petitioner has the remedy of filing statutory appeal under Rule 20 of the LIC of India (Agents) Regulation, 2017 within three months of the said order. That the petitioner thereafter, has preferred an appeal before the Zonal Manager-cum-Appellate Authority, East Central Zonal Office, LIC of India on 22.08.2022. That the Appellate Authority vide order dated 09.10.2023 has rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner upholding the order passed by the Senior Division Manager-cum-Disciplinary Authority, Begusarai dated 04.10.2021.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been rendering his services to the Corporation since the last more than 31 years without any complaint from any quarters. That there are absolutely no complaints either from any of the policy holders or from the Corporation since 31 years with regard to the conduct of the business by the petitioner. That the petitioner is an old age person of sixty years and in case the agency of the petitioner is terminated with forfeiture of the renewal commission, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and he would have to starve to death as this is the only means of survival. Further, learned counsel has stated that the petitioner has not suppressed any material and was unaware of the illness of the proposed policy holder. Further, the Branch Manager, Jamui and the Officer of the Department were also present and visited the proposed policy holder therefore, the petitioner cannot be blamed for the lapses, if any. Further, it is stated that the petitioner at the most can be accused of negligence in verifying the credentials of the proposed policy holder at the time of submitting the policy but he cannot be accused of suppression of material fact or playing any fraud on the Corporation. That the punishment meted out to the petitioner terminating his agency as well as forfeiture of all the commissions payable to him is a harsh punishment which is disproportionate to the allegation made against the petitioner. That single solitary negligence cannot be made the basis for terminating the agency of the petitioner and forfeiting all the renewal commissions payable to him. Learned counsel has therefore, prayed this Hon'ble Court to allow the present writ petition and set aside the order of the appellate authority as well as the disciplinary authority dated 04.10.2021 & 09.10.2023 respectively and restore the agency of the petitioner.
The rest of the document can be viewed at https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMTEzODAjMjAyNCMxI04=-tDixUGYDvgI=
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
