R.K.Agarwal, J. - (1.) The petitioner, Nityanand Pandey was filed this writ petition seeking a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 8.5.1995 passed by the Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Gorakhpur, respondent No. 3, [filed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition) and the order dated 23.1.1996 passed by the Zonal Manager, North Central Zone, L.I.C. Kanpur, [filed as Annexure-10 to the writ petition]. A further relief has been sought for reinstating the agency of the petitioner with all consequential benefits and in continuity.
(2.) Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows:
(3.) The petitioner was appointed as an agent of Life Insurance Corporation by the Branch Manager of Deoria Branch on 24/25.10.1986 and the agency Code allotted to the petitioner was 5023282. Initially, the appointment of the petitioner as an agent was for a period of 3 years, which had been subsequently renewed twice, the last renewal being done in October, 1992. As an agent the petitioner is entitled to payment of commission of the insurance policies procured by him. The terms and conditions of the appointment of an agent like the petitioner is governed by the Life Insurance Corporation [Agent] Regulation, 1972 [hereinafter referred to or the Agent Regulation]. According to the petitioner after getting requisite formalities completed he submits the proposal for insurance of a person to the Development Officer of the L.I.C. to whom to he had been attached and after due verification by the Development Officer, the proposal is submitted by the Development Officer to the branch office for its acceptance and completion of other requisite formalities. The Development Officer submits the moral hazard report, proof of age of the insurer and other necessary information. It is the case of the petitioner that the proposal submitted by him cannot be accepted and cannot result into a life insurance policy of the proposed insurer, unless and until the same is duly verified, authenticated and accented by the Development Officer to whom he is attached. It appears that the Manager [Sales], Divisional Office, Gorakhpur, sometimes in March, 1992, made some enquiry from the petitioner pertaining to an insurance policy bearing No. 820379818 to which the petitioner replied that he had no concern whatsoever with the said policy and also intimated that he had not insured it. A show cause notice on 22.12.93 was served upon the petitioner calling upon him to submit his reply to certain charges levelled therein. By means of the said show cause notice the petitioner was asked to submit his explanation with regard to eight insurance policies referred to in the enclosure annexure to the notice and was charged that he had resorted to bogus insurance policy and had also received the commission on such policies, by means of voucher No. 547, dated 23.5.91. The notice also mentioned that his agency is liable to be terminated and the recurring commission payable to him is to be forfeited. Having received of the aforesaid notice the petitioner submitted his reply on 18.1.1994 and denied all the charges. He also denied to have received any commission on account of the account of the said policies and further stated that the commission paid to him by means of voucher No. 547, dated 23.5.91 pertains to payment of commission with regard to entirely different insurance policies and had nothing to do with the eight insurance policies referred to in the show cause notice. He further stated that the proposal had neither been filled up by the petitioner nor the insurance policies had anything to do with him. He also sought for giving a copy of the proposal, agent confidential report and other related documents pertaining to the disputed policies. It has been farther claimed by the petitioner that without supplying the documents asked for and without giving opportunity of personal hearing and without making any enquiry whatsoever, the respondent No. 3 vide order dated 8.5.95 terminated the agency of the petitioner and forfeited all recurring commission payable to him.;