Prabhat Kumar Sinha vs L.I.C. of India and Others

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 25.09.2010 (Annexure P/2A) which was passed by Zonal Manager & Appellate Authority, against the order dated 22.09.2009, whereby the petitioner was given warning, the order dated 23.09.2009 whereby the agency of the petitioner was terminated, and the order dated 24.09.2009, whereby the petitioner was prohibited from entering into the Branch Office. All these orders were passed by the Senior Divisional Manager i.e. the respondent No. 3. These orders, which were challenged in appeal. preferred by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority, have merged with the order dated 25.09.2010 (Annexure P/2A) and as such, it is not necessary to challenge these orders viz. 22.09.2009, 23.09.2009 and 24.09.2009, separately. The petitioner has further added a prayer in this petition to credit immediately the renewal commission shown as paid in the TDS certificate issued u/s. 203 to the petitioner''s bank account along with 12% interest. The petitioner next seeks quashing of the memorial order dated 25.08.2011 (Annexure P/2B) passed by the Current-in-Charge-Chairman/respondent No. 1. Shri Rao, learned counsel appearing with Shri Sinha, learned Advocate for the petitioner would urge the following*?points for consideration, firstly, that the impugned orders are contrary to the relevant regulations of the respondent/Corporation, secondly, the respondent No. 3, the disciplinary authority has denied supply of documents and other evidences used against the petitioner and thereby violated the principles of natural justice and fair play, and issuing a warning without any change in circumstances was bad in law, thirdly, termination order is an unreasoned order and was passed in contravention of regulations 16(1)(b) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, 1972 (for short ''the Regulation, 1972''). He would further submit that the petitioner has worked sincerely for which he was rewarded also. The Senior Divisional Manager has passed the order with strong malice towards the petitioner and purposely levying penalty of forfeiture of his commission payable under Regulation 19 of the Regulations, 1972. The petitioner has worked for more than five years and since his appointment, the aggregate sum of policies affected through him exceeded Rs. 2 lacs in a year and they are in full force even today. The imposition of penalty is against the provisions of regulation 19 of the Regulations, 1972. The respondent No. 4 has falsely stated that the TDS certificate issued u/s 203 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in Form No, 16A that the renewal commission, etc. of Rs. 6,20,788/- was paid to the petitioner, though no such payment was credited to the petitioner''s bank account or otherwise paid to him.

On the contrary, Shri Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation would support the impugned appellate order dated 25.09.2010 (Annexure P/2A) as well as the order dated 25.08.2011 (Annexure P/2B) passed in the memorial, on the ground that whatever points were raised by the petitioner, have been properly considered by the appellate authority as well as the Current-in-charge Chairman. Thus, no interference is warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.

The main contention of the petitioner is that the termination order was passed without supplying all the relevant documents, evidences, which were relied on while taking a decision against the petitioner. The petitioner has not pointed out any specific document which, according to him, became the basis for passing the impugned orders, except a vague statement that some documents were not supplied to him.

The Supreme Court, in State of U.P. & Others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, observed as under:

In Shaughnessy v. United States (Jackson, J.) a Judge of the United States Supreme Court has said: L Ed p. 969)

... Procedural fairness and regularity are of the indispensable essence of liberty. Severe substantive laws can be endured if they are fairly and impartially applied.

The affect of non-disclosure of relevant documents has been stated in Judicial Review of Administrative Action by De Smith, Woolf and Jowell, 5th Edn., p. 442 as follows:

If relevant evidential material is not disclosed at all to a party who is potentially prejudiced by it, there is prima facie unfairness, irrespective of whether the material in question arose before, during or" after the hearing. This proposition can be illustrated by a large number of modern cases involving the use of undisclosed reports by administrative tribunals and other adjudicating bodies. If the deciding body is or has the trappings of judicial tribunal and receives or appears to receive evidence ex parte which is not fully disclosed, or holds ex parte inspections during the course or. after the conclusion of the hearing, the case for setting the decision aside is obviously very strong; the maxim that justice must been seen to be done can readily be invoked.

In our opinion the aforesaid maxim is fully applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case.

On perusal of the order dated 25.09.2010 (Annexure P/2A) passed by Zonal Manager & Appellate Authority, it appears that the appellate authority has not considered the grounds raised by the petitioner in respect of challenge to the orders dated 22.09.2010, 23.09.2010 and 24.09.2010.1 find that the appellate authority has not dealt in detail with the issue of non-supply of documents to the petitioner, on the basis of which, decision was taken. The order passed by the appellate authority/respondent No. 1 as well as the Current-in-Charge-Chairman/respondent No. 1, are cryptic and manifest no application of mind as the grounds raised by the petitioner, have not been dealt with separately to come to the $ conclusion that the orders passed by the Senior Divisional Manager, were just and proper. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the matter is remitted back to the appellate authority to consider each and every grounds raised by the petitioner, and thereafter, take decision in accordance with law on its. own merits, by a reasoned order, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The impugned orders dated 25.9.2010 passed in appeal and also the memorial order dated 25.8.2011 are quashed.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.

There shall be no order as to costs.