Sri K P Narasimha Murthy v. Zonal Manager

Order No.CRL.MISC No.2253/2018 dated 4-04-2018,sufficient opportunity was given to you to be heard by our Enquiry Officer on 24-09-2018. However, your explanation dated 24-09-2018 to the Enquiry Officer has not been found satisfactory.

Whereas, you being a professional Agent, by your misdeeds, have tarnished the image of the Corporation.

WHEREAS, you have acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Corporation and violated Rule 8(3), Regulations 15(c) and (d) read with 16 (1) (b),(c), (h), (i) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, 2017 notified vide Gazette Notification G.S.R. 86(E) dated 2-02-2017 and failed to perform your duties as an Agent.

However, before proceeding further with the final order, you are hereby directed to show cause in writing as to why your agency should not be "Terminated with forfeiture of Renewal Commission" for your aforesaid misdeeds and for acting in a manner detrimental to the interest of the Corporation, under the provisions of Rule 8(3), Regulations 15(c) and (d) read with 16(1) (b), (c), (h), (i) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, 2017 notified vide Gazette Notification G.S.R. 86(E) dated 2.02.2017.

Whereas, your reply should reach us within 15 days from the date of receipt of this notice failing which it will be presumed that you have nothing to say in the manner and further action will be taken without any reference to you.

Dated at BANGALORE this 18th day of March 2019." (Emphasis added)

The petitioner submits a detailed reply to the show cause notice on 28-03-2019 and before an order could be passed, reaches this Court calling in question the said show cause notice in Writ Petition No.14709 of 2019. This Court disposed of the petition in term of its order dated 11-04-2019 directing order to be passed. Consequence of the said direction results in passing of the final order under the Regulations. The final order reads as follows: "FINAL ORDER

ACTION UNDER LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA(AGENTS) REGULATIONS, 2017 NOTIFIED VIDE GAZETTE G.S.R. 86(E) DATED 2-02-2017 ON THE MATTER OF SRI SUTRAM SURESH, AGENT, CODE NO.5942611 OF CITY BRANCH OFFICE, UNDER BANGALORE DIVISION-1. WHEREAS, you, Sri Sutram Suresh, Agent, Code No.5942611, attached to City Branch Office, under Divisional Office I, Bangalore, were issued with a Show Cause Notice dated 18-03-2019, explaining the charges therein and calling for your explanation.

FOR good and sufficient reasons, I as the Competent Authority provisionally proposed the penalty of termination of your Agency with forfeiture of Renewal Commission with effect from the date of Final Order under Regulation 15(c) and (d) read with Regulations 16(1) (b), (c), (h), (i) and Regulation 8(3) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations,

2017 notified vide Gazette Notification G.S.R. 86(E) dated

2.02.2017 in the said Show Cause Notice dated 18-03-2019.

WHEREAS, in your reply dated 28-03-2019 to the above Show Cause Notice dated 18-03-2019, you have not brought out any relevant facts to disprove the charges framed against you and your reply is not satisfactory.

WHEREAS, I as the Competent Authority after carefully going through the case, relevant records and your reply vide letter dated 28-03-2019 have satisfied myself that you have acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Corporation, and failed to maintain absolute integrity in discharge of your duties thus infringing on Regulations 16(1) (b), (c), (h), (i) and Regulation 8(3) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, 2017 notified vide Gazette Notification G.S.R. 86(E) dated

2.02.2017. Consequently, Renewal Commission is forfeited under Sub-Regulation 2 of Regulation 19 of LIC of India (Agents) Regulations, 2017 notified vide Gazette Notification G.S.R. 86 (E) dated 2-02-2017.

NOW, therefore, for the reasons stated above, I, as the Competent Authority impose upon you the penalty of termination of your agency with forfeiture of Renewal Commission with effect from the date of Final Order and recovery of all outstanding dues, under the provisions of Regulations 16(1) (b), (c), (h), (i) and Regulation 8(3) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, 2017 notified vide Gazette Notification G.S.R. 86(E) dated

2.02.2017 with immediate effect. Consequently, Renewal

Commission is forfeited under Sub-Regulation 2 of Regulation 19 of LIC of India (Agents) Regulations, 2017 notified vide Gazette Notification G.S.R. 86(E) dated 2-02-2017. Dated at Bangalore this 14th day of May, 2019." (Emphasis added)

The final order reads that the petitioner in reply dated 28-03-2019 to the show cause notice dated 18-03-2019 was unable to disprove the charges framed against him and the reply was not satisfactory. Charges were never framed against the petitioner. What was issued was a show cause notice seeking to show cause as to why the agency should not be terminated. Therefore, this is the next straw of violation of principles of natural justice and denial of reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself.

¶16Regulation 16 (supra) which deals with termination of agency mandates that if the agency of any agent is to be terminated for any of the reasons enumerated in sub-regulation (1), mandates that the agent shall be provided reasonable opportunity to show cause against such termination. The reasonable opportunity to show cause against such termination would in the considered view of this Court would not mean that he should not be made known of what are the allegations against him or communication appointment of Enquiry Officer or an order framing the charge, all of which form part of a final order which terminates the agency of the petitioner. The Fifth schedule appended to Regulation 16 as quoted and noted (supra) mandates certain procedure to be followed prior to passage of an order that

would terminate the agency of an agent. A perusal at the proceedings or the orders passed which are all noted hereinabove, would unmistakably indicate that the procedure as stipulated under the Fifth Schedule has been thrown to the winds and the order of termination is passed.

¶17It is trite that if a particular procedure is mandated to be followed prior to passing any order of termination, such procedure cannot be given a go-bye by the Authorities, as procedure is the life blood of the Fifth Schedule. On this solitary ground of blatant violation or non-compliance with the procedure stipulated under the Fifth Schedule and Regulation 16, the orders impugned are rendered unsustainable." (underlined by me)

¶12In view of the matter, where following the declaration of law made by this Court in the above case, wherein, the FIR has been registered against the petitioner herein for his involvement, in so far as, the Vikram Investments is concerned and same has nothing to do with the functioning of the petitioner being an agent under the relevant rules of the LIC, and the entire action of the respondent-authority is based on the anonymous letter dated 13.08.2018 produced at Annexure-R6 is without any basis as well as exercising the jurisdiction of the respondent-corporation to initiate action against the petitioner, in devoid of Rules of the

respondent-LIC and therefore, I am of the view that, the impugned order of the respondent No.1 requires to be set aside.

¶13In that view of the matter, I find force in the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner by referring to the provisions at Annexure-B to the writ petition and therefore, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The order dated 12.09.2023 (Annexure-A) issued by the respondent No.1 is hereby set aside and writ of mandamus is issued to respondent No.3 to release the commission amount due to the petitioner, forthwith, within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of this order. iii. In view of the disposal of this writ petition the pending applications, if any, stands disposed of. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

NM: List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 23625 OF 2023 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. K.P. NARASIMHA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O LATE K R PRAHALADA RAO NO. 101, 19TH CROSS, 20TH MAIN, SMS LAYOUT J.P. NAGAR, V PHASE BENGALURU - 560 078. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KIRAN S JAVALI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRASHANTH P N, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ZONAL MANAGER APPELLANT AUTHORITY LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA SOUTH CENTRAL ZONE OFFICE JEEVAN BHAGYA SALFABAD HYDERABAD - 500 063. 2. THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN "YOGAKSHEMA" JEEVAN BHIMA MARG Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA NC:(2025:KHC:52556( WP(No.(23625(of(2023( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( CENTRAL,OFFICE, P,B,NO.,19953, MUMBAI,-,400,021., , 3., THE,SENIOR,DIVISIONAL,MANAGER, LIFE,INSURANCE,CORPORATION,OF,INDIA,, DIVISIONAL,OFFICE,,1, J,C,ROAD,, BENGALURU,-,560,002., , …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,RAJESH,SHETTY,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R1,TO,R3), , , THIS, WP, IS, FILED, UNDER, ARTICLES, 226, AND, 227, OF, THE, CONSTITUTION, OF, INDIA, PRAYING, TO, SET, ASIDE, THE, ORDER,PASSED,BY,THE,R1,IN,THE,PROCEEDINGS,HELD,UNDER, RULE,23,OF,THE,LIC,OF,INDIA,(AGENTS),REGULATIONS,,2017, IN, CODE, NO., 05467611,, CITY, BRANCH, -611,, URBAN, BANGALORE, DIVISION-1, DATED, SEPTEMBER, 12,, 2023,, (ANNEXURE-A),AND,ETC.,, , , THIS, PETITION,, COMING, ON, FOR, ORDERS,, THIS, DAY,, ORDER,WAS,MADE,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, , CORAM:, HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,E.S.INDIRESH, , ORAL ORDER Heard Sri. Kiran S Javali., learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri., Prashanth P.N., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Rajesh Shetty, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2. In this writ petition the petitioner is assailing the proceedings initiated by the respondent No.1 under Rule 23 of the LIC of India (Agents) Regulations, 2017 in Code No.05467611 (Annexure-A) inter-alia sought for direction to the respondent No.3 to release the commission amount due, to the petitioner as per Annexure-J of the writ petition. Factual matrix of the case: 3. The petitioner is an LIC Agent of the respondent No.1, assailing the disciplinary action initiated against the petitioner herein by the respondent, on the ground that, the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.2 in Crime No.73/2018 registered by the Banshankari Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 34, 403, 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, based on a complaint lodged by one Sri. P.R. Balaji as per Annexure R-2. 4. It is the case of the respondent, that the aforementioned complaint was lodged against the petitioner, as the complainant in the aforementioned proceedings, has instigated one P.R. Balaji to invest in the Vikram Investments. Thereby, the proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner as per Annexure R2. The said aspect was brought to the notice of the respondent-authorities as per Annexure R6 to the statement of objection, dated 13.08.2018 and thereby, the respondent-authorities have initiated a departmental enquiry against the petitioner. Ultimately, the respondent-authority passed the impugned order dated 12.09.2023 (Annexure-A) to the writ petition. Hence, this writ petition is filed. 5. Sri. Kiran S Javali, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri. Prashanth P.N. learned counsel for the petitioner, invited the attention of this Court to the proceedings initiated against the petitioner as per the letter dated 12.03.2018 (Annexure-C) for being involved in the repeated scam of Vikram Investments and also the relevant provisions contained under the provisions of the LIC of India (Agents) Regulations, 2017 produced at Annexure-B. It is also argued that, the service rendered by the petitioner, was taken into consideration and was honoured with being the Member of the Chairman's Club by the respondent-authorities. Thereafter, the respondents have issued a Show-cause Notice dated 18.03.2019 seeking explanation for violation of the r