Delhi High Court
Surender Kumar Aggarwal vs The Zonal Manager & Ors on 31 October, 2018
Author: V. Kameswar Rao
Bench: Chief Justice, V. Kameswar Rao
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 31st October, 2018
+ LPA 739/2017
SURENDER KUMAR AGGARWAL
..... Appellant
Through: In person.
versus
THE ZONAL MANAGER & ORS
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Rajawat, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 13th July, 2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 8285/2016, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging his order of termination as an agent of Life Insurance Corporation (LIC in short) was dismissed.
2. The facts as noted from the record are that the appellant was appointed as an agent of LIC on 27th February, 1986. His two sons, namely Mr. Khayati Aggarwal and Mr. Neeraj Aggarwal were also appointed as LIC LPA No. 739/2017 Page 1 of 7 agents. On 9th June, 2010, an LIC policy holder filed a complaint against Mr. Khayati Aggarwal, wherein it was alleged that Mr. Khayati Agarwal had fraudulently changed the nomination in respect of a policy given by the policy holder to surrender and instead of surrendering the same, Mr. Khayati Aggarwal had made a fraudulent death claim, even though the policy holder was alive. The fraudulent claim bore the signature and stamp of the appellant as a witness. Accordingly, LIC issued a letter dated 10 th June, 2010 to the appellant calling upon him to explain as to how he had witnessed the claim when the policy holder was still alive. The appellant replied to the said letter denying that he had witnessed the claim in question. Thereafter, on 22 nd July, 2010, LIC issued a show cause notice to the appellant alleging that he had acted in a manner prejudicial and detrimental to the interest of LIC and had violated the provisions of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents), Rules, 1972. In response to the said letter, he has stated as under:
"I asked my son Neeraj Aggarwal agent 3647317 who told me that he used my stamp and did my signatures at the document of said policy no. 174519611. During this period, I was away for Char Dham Yatra."
3. Thereafter, LIC issued a show-cause notice dated 25th September, 2010 to Mr. Neeraj Aggarwal and vide order dated 14th October, 2010 terminated his appointment as LIC Agent.
LPA No. 739/2017 Page 2 of 7
4. In any case, vide order dated 10th December, 2013, LIC terminated the appointment of the appellant as an agent of LIC. The appellant challenged the termination under the Rules before the Zonal Manager, LIC, who dismissed the appeal vide order dated 9 th May, 2014. The revision petition challenging the appellate order dated 9th May, 2014 was also dismissed by the Chairman on 4th October, 2014.
5. The plea of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that his agency could not have been terminated on the basis of the show-cause notice as, at the relevant time, the principal allegation was against Mr. Khayati Aggarwal. He stated that thereafter respondents proceeded against Mr. Neeraj Aggarwal and terminated his agency and therefore the earlier show- cause notice was redundant. The appellant also relied upon the order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the writ petition filed by Mr. Khayati Aggarwal wherein it was held by Punjab and Haryana High Court that the show cause notice issued to Mr. Khayati Aggarwal stood superseded by the subsequent notice issued to Mr. Neeraj Aggarwal. Learned Single Judge has rejected the plea made on behalf of the appellant by holding that,
(i) the allegation against the appellant was that he had witnessed the nomination form which had been fraudulently changed and also the death claim made in respect of a policy during the life time of the policy holder; (ii) LPA No. 739/2017 Page 3 of 7 the allegation against Mr. Khayati Aggarwal was that he had fraudulently changed the nomination in favour of the brother of the policy holder under a forged signature; (iii) in view of the appellant's response that Mr. Khayati Aggarwal did not know the policy holder but the acts had been done by Mr. Neeraj Aaggarwal, the show-cause notice was issued to Mr. Neeraj Aggarwal followed by termination of his agency; (iv) the allegation against the appellant remained the same that he had signed and stamped the documents for making fraudulent claim as a witness; (v) it is understandable that once a show cause notice was issued to Mr. Neeraj Aggarwal for certain allegations which were earlier alleged to be done by Mr. Khayati Aggarwal, the show- cause notice issued to Mr. Khayati Aggarwal would stand superseded and this is what persuaded the Punjab and Haryana High Court to set aside the order of termination of Mr. Khayati Aggarwal as an agent. The said reasoning is not applicable in the case of the appellant herein as the allegations made continued to stand; (vi) even the appellant had withdrawn the earlier petition with a view to persuade the respondent to allow him to continue his agency since he had served as an LIC agent for 28 years and it is only on this ground that this court had directed the appellant to withdraw the said writ petition.
LPA No. 739/2017 Page 4 of 7
6. In this appeal, an affidavit has been filed by the appellant annexing therewith minutes of the 6th meeting of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against one Mr. R.L. Sharma, Faculty member (retd.) ZTC, Gurgaon. In the minutes, it was noted that Mr. S.K. Aggarwal and Mr. Khayati Aggarwal were found innocent in this case and charge sheet was dropped, which office note was denied to Sh. R.L. Sharma, CSE. A response to the said affidavit has been filed by the LIC wherein they have stated that the charge sheet was issued to Mr. R.L. Sharma on 28th March, 2014 and pursuant to a detailed enquiry and a penalty of reduction in basic pension of one stage for two years was imposed on Mr. Sharma. The appellant in his submission reiterates the plea that a proper opportunity was not given to him before terminating his agency.
7. We are unable to agree with the limited submission of the appellant for the simple reason that the allegation against the appellant was that he had witnessed the nomination, which had been fraudulently changed and also the death claim made in respect of policy during the lifetime of the policy holder. The appellant was issued a show cause notice, to which he has filed reply. The same was considered, before the order of termination was passed. The appellant availed the remedy of appeal and revision before the higher authorities, who also rejected the appeal / revision with due application of LPA No. 739/2017 Page 5 of 7 mind. So, it cannot be said that no proper opportunity was given to the appellant. That apart, we note before the learned Single Judge the limited submission of the appellant was of parity qua Khayati Aggarwal, based on the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order made a distinction between the appellant's case and Khayati Aggarwal case, with which we agree. Further it has come on record in the appellate order that the signatures of the appellant along with rubber stamp / seal of his name has been affixed on all the documents which were used for committing fraud establishes the involvement of the appellant. It is also noted that the appellant had withdrawn the earlier writ petition being W.P.(C) 8437/2014 on the ground to persuade the respondents to allow him to continue his agency since, he had served as LIC's agent for about 28 years. In other words, on the plea that the action of termination is severe, this court had allowed the appellant to withdraw the writ petition to enable the appellant to pursue with the respondents. But no liberty was granted by this court to the appellant to challenge any such order to be passed by the respondents rejecting his limited prayer, that the penalty is severe. In any case, the charge against the appellant is of a very serious nature. The scope of judicial review in these types of matters is very limited. This Court cannot reappreciate the evidence / material considered by the authorities and come to a different conclusion.
LPA No. 739/2017 Page 6 of 7
8. Taking in view the totality of the facts, this court is of the view that the impugned order does not require any interference from this Court. The appeal is dismissed.
CM No. 41982/2017
Dismissed as infructuous.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J CHIEF JUSTICE OCTOBER 31, 2018/jg LPA No. 739/2017 Page 7 of 7