Kerala High Court
V.P. Subrahmanian vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India, ... on 8 June, 1998
Equivalent citations: AIR1998KER363
Author: Ar. Lakshmanan
Bench: Ar. Lakshmanan, D. Sreedevi
JUDGMENT Ar. Lakshmanan, J.
1. Heard Mr. K. C. Eldho for the appellant. This appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in O. P. No. 9241 of 1994 dismissing the Original Petition challenging the order of termination of the appellant as an agent of the Life Insurance Corporation of India. Learned Judge held that the Corporation is justified in terminating the contract of service of the appellant.
2. The appellant filed the Original Petition to quash Exts. P-5, P-8 and P-12 orders passed by Respondents 4, 3 and 2 and for a direction to reinstate him in his agency work. He also prayed for a declaration that the termination of his agency by the respondents is illegal.
3. The appellant was an L.I.C. agent attached to the 5th respondent branch. He joined as a L.I.C. agent under the 5th respondent on 20th March, 1987 after submitting the required application. Ext. P-3 show cause notice was issued to the appellant on the ground that the appellant has deliberately withheld the information relating to the previous agency while submitting the application for L.I.C. agency on 20th March, 1987. It is alleged that while replying to question No. 10 of the said application form as to whether he had represented the Life Insurance Corporation of India as its agent at any time, the appellant has replied "N.A." in the said application form. It is further alleged that the appellant has made averment in the said application which is not true and thus, have acted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Corporation. The appellant was directed to show cause why his agency should not be terminated under Rule 16(i) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Agents (Regulations), 1972. The appellant submitted Ext. P-4 written explanation where he stated that in the year 1977, he joined as an L.I.C. agent and worked for about one year and the agency was terminated for want of securing the required business. According to the appellant, the application form for agency was filled up before the then Branch Manager and one Chandrabhanu, the Development Officer and when it came to question No. 10 of the application, the officers instructed him that it is not relevant and the appellant need only fill up the same as "N.A." just below the sub-clause of question No. 10. The appellant further pleaded that there is no suppression of material fact and has not committed any act in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Corporation. Pursuant to Ext. P-4, 4th, respondent issued Ext. P-5 ordering penalty of termination of agency in terms of Rule 16(i) with forefeiture of commission under Rule 19(i) of the Agents Rule, 1972. Aggrieved by Ext. P-5, the appellant filed Ext. P-6 appeal before the 3rd respondent and the same was also dismissed by Ext. P-8. But the forfeiture of the agency commission under Rule 19(1) was set aside. Appellant's counsel submitted that 3rd respondent has failed to apply his mind while passing Ext. P-8 order. Aggrieved by that order, Ext. P-9 memorial was made before the 2nd respondent, which was also rejected by the 2nd respondent. Aggrieved by Exts. P-5, P-8 and Ext. P-10, appellant has filed this Original Petition which has been dismissed by the learned Judge on 17th March, 1998.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that Ext. P-5 order has been issued without making an enquiry or at least getting a statement from the then Branch Manager of the 5th respondent or from C. B. Chandrabhanu, who is the Development Officer, which according to the appellant, proves his innocence in the matter. The 4th respondent did not care to give the appellant an opportunity to adduce before imposing the penalty of termination of agency. It is also submitted that no prejudice has been caused to the Corporation or any loss or damage caused by the non-mentioning of the fact required for question No. 10.
5. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused exhibits which are under challenge in the Original Petition. A perusal of Ext. P-5 would show that the Senior Divisional Manager/Disciplinary Authority, on a consideration of the materials placed before him, has passed the order of termination of the-agency in terms of Rule 16(1) with forefeiture of commission under Rule 19(1) of the Agents Rule, 1972. However, this order was interfered with, by the appellate authority under Ext. P-8 wherein, the Zonal Manager/ appellate authority, on an evaluation of the facts and circumstances, of the case modified the order of the original authority. He confirmed the order of termination of the agency on the ground that the appellant has suppressed to mention the required facts about his previous agency and therefore, ends of justice would be met if the order of termination of agency alone is confirmed. However, the appellate authority has set aside the order of the original authority in so far as it relates to the direction with reference to the forefeiture of the agency commission under Regulation 19(1) in respect of the business secured by the appcllani under his agency. We have also perused the order passed by the Chairman of the Life Insurance Corporation of India under Ext. P-12 dated 20th May, 1994. The Chairman after carefully considering the memorial submitted by the appellant and the relevant records was convinced that question No. 10 of the application form for fresh agency was deliberately answered by the agent as "N. A." and thereby the appellant has suppressed the fact of his holding agency with Code No. 3789781 with Ernakulam Branch Office. The Chairman also has held that by suppression of the fact, the agent has acted in a manner detrimental to the interests of the Corporation and considering the gravity of the offence, he concurred with the order of the appellate authority which upheld the termination of the agency setting aside the order of forfeiture of commission. We have carefully considered the entire matter and also the order passed by the learned single Judge. We are in entire agreement with the orders passed by all the three authorities and also by this Court. Admittedly, the appellant has suppressed to mention a very relevant fuel with reference to his previous agency. In our opinion, the appellant has purposely omitted to mention the relevant facts by way of answer to question No. 10. Therefore, we are of the view that the appellant has acted in a manner detrimental to the interests of the Corporation and considering the gravity of the offence, all the three authorities have imposed the penalty of termination. No interference is, therefore, called for with the orders passed by the authorities below and also with the judgment passed by the learned single Judge of this Court.
The Writ Appeal is dismissed.