Patna High Court
Vinay Krishna (Ex-L.I.C. Agent) vs The Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 27 June, 2024
Author: A. Abhishek Reddy
Bench: A. Abhishek Reddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2468 of 2022
======================================================
Vinay Krishna (Ex-L.I.C. Agent) son of Pradyuman Prasad, resident of Ward
No. 22, Behind Teachers' Quarter, near Emmanuel School, P.S. Motihari,
District-East Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Life Insurance Corporation of India through the Chairman,
Yogakshema, Jeevan Bima Marg, Post Box No.19953, Mumbai-400021.
2. The Zonal Manager, East Central Zone, L.I.C. of India, Jeevan Deep
Building, Exhibition Road, Patna.
3. Senior Divisional Manager, L.I.C. of India, Muzaffarpur Division, Jeewan
Prakash, Muzaffarpur.
4. Senior Branch Manager, L.I.C. of India, Motihari Branch Office,
Muzaffarpur Division, Muzaffarpur.
5. Sri Diwakar Jha, Enquiry Officer, L.I.C. of India, Jeewan Prakash,
Divisional Office, Muzaffarpur, Bihar.
6. Sri Umesh Chandra Tiwari (the then Chief Manager of Motihari Branch,
L.I.C. of India), presently Faculty Member, L.I.C. of India, STC (Sales
Training Center), Bareilly (U.P.).
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rashmi Jha
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Ramchandra Lal Das
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 27-06-2024
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The present writ petition has been filed for the following
reliefs:-
"1. That the present writ petition is
being filed for issuance of appropriate
writ/writs, order or direction to the respondent
authorities, particularly in the nature of
Certiorari for quashing the order dated
29.10.2019
passed by the Disciplinary
Authority, senior Divisional Manager, L.I.C. of
India, Muzaffarpur Division, whereby and
whereunder the agency of the petitioner was
Patna High Court CWJC No.2468 of 2022 dt.27-06-2024
terminated with forfeiture of renewal
commission, payable to him under Rule 19(1)
of L.I.C. of India Agent Regulation, 2017 with
immediate effect which was upheld by the
Appellate Authority, Zonal Manager, East
Central Zone, L.I.C. of India, Patna vide order
dated 28.12.2020 and modified partially by the
Chairperson, L.I.C. of India, Mumbai vide
order dated 08.11.2021 from Termination of
Agency with forfeiture of Renewal Commission'
to Termination of Agency' only.
And for further directing the
respondent authorities to reinstate agency of
the petitioner as there is no financial
misconduct on the part of the petitioner which
is also evident from the order dated 08.11.2021
passed by the Chairperson, L.I.C. of India,
Mumbai. And for any other relief/reliefs for
which the petitioner is found to be entitled in
the facts and circumstances of this case."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the
petitioner was appointed as an agent of the respondent-Corporation
in the year 1994 and since then he has been discharging his duties
as an agent by catering to the needs of the policy holders without
any complaint. That some staff members of the Corporation who
were having grudge against the petitioner have filed false
complaints against the petitioner and the disciplinary authority
without taking into consideration the explanation submitted by the
petitioner and the evidence given by some of the policy holders
who have supported the petitioner has imposed the penalty of
termination with the forfeiture of renewal commission.
4. That though the petitioner has preferred an appeal
before the appellate authority, the appeal was dismissed upholding
Patna High Court CWJC No.2468 of 2022 dt.27-06-2024
the order of termination. Thereafter, the petitioner has approached
the Chairperson by way of memorial. That the Hon'ble
Chairperson vide order dated 08.11.2021 on finding that there is
no financial misconduct by the petitioner has reduced the order of
"punishment of termination with forfeiture of renewal
commission" to that of "termination of the agency" only. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has stated that all the three authorities
have dealt with the proceedings in a cursory and mechanical
manner without adverting to the explanation submitted by the
petitioner and the testimonies of the policy holders who have
supported the case of the petitioner. Further, learned counsel has
stated that though the allegations of misconduct has been alleged
against the petitioner, the CCTV footage was not presented before
the authorities to establish any wrong doing. That in the absence of
any CCTV footage to buttress the case of the respondents, the
disciplinary authority ought not to have passed the order of
termination merely on oral testimonies. Further, learned counsel
has stated that in case a direction is issued to the authorities to
verify the CCTV footage, the truth will come out and there is
every likelihood of the petitioner getting exonerated of the charges
levelled against him. That the allegations made against the
petitioner are concocted only with the view to terminate the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2468 of 2022 dt.27-06-2024
agency of the petitioner. Learned counsel has therefore, prayed this
Hon'ble Court to set aside the impugned orders by allowing the
present CWJC.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondents has vehemently opposed the very maintainability
of the present writ petition and stated that all the three authorities
after due verification of the evidence against the petitioner have
come to the conclusion that the petitioner's conduct was
inappropriate and that he has misbehaved with his female
colleagues. That the disciplinary authority had to pass the order of
termination with forfeiture of renewal commission basing on the
serious allegations of misconduct which were proved in the
enquiry. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to
the charges levelled against the petitioner and also the evidence
wherein the petitioner has himself accepted that he had
misbehaved with the female colleagues. Further, learned counsel
has also stated that the CCTV footage was not available as
cameras were not working but the evidence of the persons who
were present at the time of the incidents clearly establishes the fact
that the conduct of the petitioner was not proper. That the
punishment which has been imposed by the disciplinary authority
does not call for any interference by this Hon'ble Court. Learned
Patna High Court CWJC No.2468 of 2022 dt.27-06-2024
counsel for the respondents has relied on the judgments of this
Hon'ble Court passed in LPA No. 1068 of 2010 along with
analogous cases dated 30.06.2011 and also LPA No. 78 of 2018
dated 27.09.2019 to buttress his case. Learned counsel has
therefore, prayed this Hon'ble Court to dismiss the present writ
petition.
6. A perusal of the orders passed by the disciplinary
authority, the appellate authority as well as the memorial filed
before the Chairperson reveal that the allegations against the
petitioner are serious in nature. All the three authorities have
consistently held that the conduct of the petitioner was not proper
and that he had misbehaved with some of the female colleagues
who were working at one of the branches. Further, it is to be noted
that the petitioner in his deposition before the disciplinary
authority has admitted that he has misbehaved with the female
colleagues. The said admission made by the petitioner is extracted
below;
"PO- I came to explanation dt.
25.04.2019., in which various dates are mentioned for
various charges i.e. 21.05.10, 06.07.16, 21 and
22.05.18 and 14.03.19 for which explanation was
sought. The CSA in his reply dt. 28.04.19, he
mentioned the incident dt. 21.05.10 and 06.07.16, in
which he requested for cooler and fan repair and
disposal of policy holder's job, but as per his letter dt.
05.06.10(p3) he admitted his indiscipline and
misbehaviour with Mrs. Manisha and Mr. Deepak Kr,
Patna High Court CWJC No.2468 of 2022 dt.27-06-2024
in which they wounded. Later you repent on your
action and promised not to repeat the same.
EO to CSA- Your comment to the above
point.
CSA- I did not misbehaved intentionally
with Mrs. Manisha or Me Deepak. It occurred in
course of heated exchange.
PO- But he himself admitted that he had
done it, and thus created a scene in the public office."
7. Further, it is to be noted that the misbehaviour of the
petitioner is not an isolated incident but series of incidents which
has taken place during the period of agency. Irrespective of the
fact, whether the petitioner is working as an employee or as an
agent, he is expected to maintain the discipline and decorum of the
office where he is working. A reading of the orders passed by the
disciplinary authority, the appellate authority as well as the
memorial reveal that the conduct of the petitioner has not been up
to the mark and that he has a habit of misbehaving with his
colleagues on several occasions and fighting with them, creating
ruckus etc. This High Court in LPA No. 1068 of 2010 along with
analogous cases dated 30.06.2011 has held as under;
"The primary questions are three-fold,
namely, an agent should be afforded reasonable
opportunity within the meaning of regulation-16, and
the court should be convinced that the authorities are
not engaging themselves in act of arbitrariness, and
the order against the agent is in writing and has been
communicated to the agent. We are convinced on the
three counts and hold in favour of the appellants."
Patna High Court CWJC No.2468 of 2022 dt.27-06-2024
8. And in LPA No. 78 of 2018 dated 27.09.2019, this
Court has held as under;
l0. We have also given our anxious
consideration to the contents of the Life Insurance
Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, 1972.
Section 16 of the Rules referred to above which deals
with termination of agency for certain lapses provides
that every order of termination made under the Section
shall be in writing and communicated to the agent
concerned and that it can be terminated by the
competent authority at any time by giving him one
month's notice thereof in writing. After the expiry of
the period of notice, the agency would stand
terminated. Nowhere in the aforesaid process, as set
out under Section 16 of the regulation any provision
has been made for putting any agent to a detailed
proceeding for terminating the agency. In the present
case, we find that the notice as required under the
Rules has been served upon the respondent. He has
also been apprised of the reason for which he was
issued a show-cause notice. Only after a senior officer
of the appellant/ Corporation found the explanation of
the respondent to be non-acceptable, his Agency Code
was terminated, but without any further stipulation
regarding payment of premium to him after the
termination of such Agency Code. The order of
termination of the agency was affirmed by the
Appellate Authority which had the approval of the
Chairman of the appellant/Corporation.
9. In this particular case also the authorities have
followed the procedure contemplated under the rules and have
given ample opportunity to the petitioner. Having regard to the fact
Patna High Court CWJC No.2468 of 2022 dt.27-06-2024
that all the three authorities have held in unequivocal terms that
the petitioner's conduct was not proper and reprehensible, this
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot
interfere with the said orders and set aside the findings of the fact
arrived at by the authority. Further, it is not the case of the
petitioner that there were any procedural lapses committed by the
authorities which would had called for any interference by this
Court. In the absence of any such complaint, the prayer sought for
in the present writ petition cannot be entertained and the present
writ petition is dismissed accordingly.
(A. Abhishek Reddy, J)
Ayush/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 10.07.2024.
Transmission Date NA
