BHOOPA DEVI WIDOW Vs. SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUDHIR Agarwal, J. This writ petition was filed by Sri Sriniwas Shastri assailing the orders dated 23rd October, 1996 (Annexure No. 1) and 24th July, 1997 (Annexure No. 2) to the writ petition whereby he was terminated as L. I. C. agent under Rule 16 (1) (a) (b) and (d) read with Rule 10 (6) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, 1972. During the pendency of this writ petition, the said petitioner died and his legal heirs have been substituted to pursue this writ petition.

(2.) THE brief factual matrix of this case is that Sri Sriniwas Shastri was appointed as agent in Life Insurance Corporation (in short "lic") in the year 1964. A show-cause was issued on 5th August, 1996 (Annexure No. 6) requiring him to show-cause as to why his agency be not terminated and the Commission payable may not forfeited since in respect to a policy No. 230045022 of one Guru Sevak Das Gupta, he got it revised on 16th January, 2005 by accepting the deposit of premium on the said date although the said Sri Gupta was hospitalized from 11th January, 1995 to 16th January, 1995 and died on 16th January, 1995 at 11. 35 a. m. Thus, his aforesaid act caused loss to the Corporation. He sent a reply dated 22-8-1996 (Annexure No. 7) to the Corporation denying the aforesaid allegations and stating that for 32 years, he has discharged his duties very faithfully and effectively, and, therefore, no action be taken against him. However, the Senior Divisional Manager L. I. C. Kanpur, passed an order on 23rd December, 1996 rejecting the contentions of the said agent and terminating his agency. An appeal was filed under Regulation 20 of 1972 Regulations, but the same was also rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 24th July, 1997. Hence this writ petition.

(3.) HEARD Sri Manoj Kumar learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prakash Padia learned Counsel for the respondent and perused the record. In my view this writ petition is liable to be allowed on the first issue that the impugned orders are wholly non-speaking and unreasoned. Regulation 16 of 1972 Regulations read as under: "16. Termination of agency for certain lapses.- (1) The competent authority may by order, determine the appointment of an agent : (a) if he has failed to discharge his functions, as set out in Regulation 8, to the satisfaction of the competent authority; (b) if he acts in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Corporation or to the interests of its policy- holders; (c) if evidence comes to its knowledge to show that he has been allowing or offering to allow rebate of the whole or any part of the commission payable to him; (d) if it is found that any averment contained in his agency application or in any report furnished by him as an agent in respect of any proposal is not true; (e) if he becomes physically or mentally incapacitated for carrying out his functions as an agent: (f) if he being an absorbed agent, on being called upon to do so, fails to undergo the specified training or to pass the specified tests, within three years from the date on which he is so called upon: Provided that the agent shall be given a reasonable opportunity to show-couse against such termination. (2) Every order of termination made under Sub-Regulation shall be in writing and communicated to the agent concerned. (3) Where the competent authority proposes to take action under Sub-regulation (1) it may direct the agent not to solicit or procure new life insurance business until he is permitted by the competent authority to do so. "