* ID No.02401C0482422008 IN THE COURT OF SHRI [ENTITY] : ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE (CENTRAL07) : TIS HAZARI COURT : DELHI CIVIL SUIT NO. 60/2008 [ENTITY], W/o Shri K. P. Gupta, R/o 93, Gali Shiv Mandir, Main Road, Babarpur, Shahdara, Delhi 110 032 (Through her husband Sh. Krishan Lal Gupta Special Attorney) PLAINTIFF Versus 1. [ENTITY] Through its Chairman Sh. T.S. Vijayan, Central Office Yogakshema Building, Jiwan Bima Marg, Mumbai21. 2. [ENTITY] Through its Zonal Manager Sh. Ashok Shah, Northern Zonal office, 11th Floor, Jiwan Bharti Building, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. 3. Shri [ENTITY], Senior Divisional Manager, [ENTITY] 8th Floor, Scope Minar, District Centre, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi 110092. DEFENDANTS 1/18 [ENTITY] Vs. LIC & Ors. Date of Institution : 02.04.2008 Date when the case reserved for order : 23.04.2011 Date of Order : 23.04.2011 J U D G M E N T
1. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and mandatory injunction and in the alternative, for recovery of Rs.11,70,000/ along with pendentelite and future interest @ 10 % p.a. from the date of institution of the suit till realisation.
2. The present suit is filed by the plaintiff through her husband namely, Shri [ENTITY] as her attorney. In the plaint, it is stated that the plaintiff was appointed as LIC agent by the defendant w.e.f. 08.04.1993 and was having agency code no. 66986111. The plaintiff had been discharging her duties diligently. In the year 1997, she got Chairman Club Membership for her excellent agency work. In October 2003, she was ill and as per medical advice, she could not work. As such, she entrusted her day to day work to her employee. The said employee inadvertently deposited certain cheques given to him by the policy holders towards premium for depositing with the defendants in the name of different policy holders. The said mistake occurred due to immatureness of the said employee. It is also stated that normally policy numbers are written on the back of the cheques issued by the policy holders. In the present case also the policy numbers were written on the back of the cheques, despite that the said mistake took place. Once the plaintiff came to know about the said discrepancies, she made the payment in the name of actual policy holders and thereby no financial loss 2/18 [ENTITY] Vs. LIC & Ors.
was caused to the defendants. Not the least, she also settled the disputes with the policy holders. Despite that the defendants issued a show cause notice dated 06.09.2004 upon the plaintiff to explain the said transactions. The plaintiff replied the same vide her letter dated 19.11.2004. The defendant without holding any inquiry observed that the reply was not satisfactory and terminated her agency vide order dated 14.06.2005. No opportunity of personal hearing was given to the plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the competent authority and the same was also dismissed on 13.09.2006. Not the least, the defendants also withhold the commission due to the plaintiff and thereby caused the loss of Rs.3 lacs per year to her. Hence, the plaintiff filed the present suit seeking a declaration that the termination order dated 14.06.2005 and appellate order dated 13.09.2006 be declared null and void. The plaintiff also sought the relief of mandatory injunction for directing the defendants to restore her agency and release her renewal commission. In the alternative, the plaintiff prayed for a decree of Rs.11,70,000/ along with pendent elite and future interest @ 10 % p.a.
3. Notice of the suit was issued to the defendants who filed their common Written Statement (WS). The defendants raised the preliminary objection that the plaintiff is guilty of suppression of material facts. It is stated that the plaintiff misappropriated the money of policy holders on several occasions and acted against the interest of the defendants. The defendants received several complaints against her in that regard. Therefore, Shri [ENTITY], Sr. Branch Manager was forced to initiate the investigation. Consequently, he issued a show cause notice to the plaintiff. The plaintiff replied the said notice and the same was duly 3/18 [ENTITY] Vs. LIC & Ors.
considered by the Sr. Divisional Manager, Delhi D.O.II. On investigation, it was found that it was the regular practice of the plaintiff to collect the amount from her clients and then to use the same against other policies. As such, she committed the fraud. Therefore, the termination letter as well as the order on appeal was passed as per rules. Hence, it is prayed that the suit be dismissed.
4. On 09.09.2008 the following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this court :
(1) Whether the plaintiff is guilty of suppression of material facts in view of the preliminary objection no.2 in the written statement of the defendant? OPD1 (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as asked for in the plaint? OPP (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction and recovery of Rs. 11,70,000/ as asked for in the plaint? OPP (4) Relief.
5. The plaintiff examined herself through her attorney namely, Shri [ENTITY] and his affidavit in evidence is Ex. PW1/A. He relied upon the Power of Attorney dated 20.02.2008 which is Ex.PW 1/1; copy of TDS Certificate issued by defendant which is Ex.PW 1/2, details of payment of TDS which are Ex.PW 1/3, Ex.PW 1/ 4 and Ex.PW 1/5 respectively; Show Cause Notice dated 06.09.2004 Ex.PW 1/6, reply dated Nil sent by the plaintiff to the show cause notice which is Ex.PW 1/7, order dated 14.06.2005 4/18 [ENTITY] Vs. LIC & Ors.
which is Ex. PW1/7A; order dated 13.09.2006 which is Ex.PW 1/8 , letter dated 24.07.1993 confirming the appointment of the plaintiff as agent which is Ex.PW 1/8 (renumbered) ;letter dated 09.02.2007 issued by defendant which is Ex.PW 1/11, letter dated 14.02.2005 issued by the defendant which is Ex.PW 1/12; legal notice dated 03.12.2007 which is Ex.PW 1/13, postal receipts which are Ex.PW 1/14, UPC which is Ex.PW 1/14 A, AD Card which is Ex.PW 1/15, notice under [SECTION] of [ACT] which is Ex.PW 1/16, AD card which is Ex.PW 1/17. No document is marked as Ex. PW 1/9 and Ex.PW 1/10 by the plaintiff.
6. The defendants examined Shri [ENTITY], A.O. Department Sales, Division OfficeII as DW1 and his affidavit in evidence is Ex.DW 1/1. He relied upon his authority dated 01.04.2009 which is Ex.DW 1/A and letter dated 10.06.2004 issued by defendant which is Ex.DW 1/B. He also relied upon the document Ex.PW 1/6 to Ex. PW 1/9.
7. I have heard the ld. counsels for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
8. Issues no.1 and 2 are taken up together as they involve common discussion. Onus to prove issue no.1 was upon the defendant no.1 while the onus to prove issue no.2 was upon the plaintiff.
9. Admitted facts are that the plaintiff was appointed as LIC agent; she collected certain cheques from the policy holders and deposited the said cheques in the account of the other policy holders; the show cause 5/18 [ENTITY] Vs. LIC & Ors.
notice dated 06.09.2004 was issued to her; the plaintiff received the said show cause notice and replied the same; her agency was terminated vide order dated 14.06.2005; and she filed the appeal against the same, which was also dismissed on 13.09.2006.
10. Counsel for the plaintiff pleaded that the plaintiff was not keeping well and she had to take care of her ailing motherinlaw also, hence, she employed one person to carry on the business. The said employee due to inadvertence and human error deposited the certain cheques collected from the policy holders in the account of the policy holders other than those from whom the same were collected. Counsel for the plaintiff also pleaded that while conducting the departmental inquiry, the defendants had not followed the principal of natural justice; had acted in the bias manner at the instance of the other agents who were jealous of the plaintiff; and no opportunity of cross examination was given to the plaintiff. It is also pleaded that no speaking order was passed by the defendants and they illegally forfeited the commission of the plaintiff against the rule. In reply, the defendants denied the said pleas and pleaded that the principal of natural justice was followed and the orders were passed as per law.
11. To prove her case, the plaintiff examined PW1, who is the husband and power of attorney holder of the plaintiff. He deposed that the plaintiff was suffering from rasouli that's why she could not look after the business. He admitted that [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY] were her clients; the cheques were collected from those persons and were deposited in account of other policy holders; the complaints in writing were lodged by them with the defendants;
6/18 [ENTITY] Vs. LIC & Ors.
consequently, the show cause notice was issued by the defendants; and [ENTITY] also lodged a police complaint in that regard. He also deposed that after receipt of the show cause notice, the plaintiff did not meet the defendants but filed a written reply and the same was filed after taking several adjournments by her. He deposed that the plaintiff made several requests for personal hearing.
12. The defendants examined DW1 who proved the authority letter DW 1/A in his favour to depose in the court. Hence, it can be held that DW1 was competent to depose in the court. In his cross examination, he deposed that the agency commission was paid to the plaintiff till the date of final order of termination; he could not mention the date, month and year when the plaintiff was called for personal hearing; no evidence of the plaintiff was recorded on any date; and the plaintiff was never given any opportunity to cross examine the truthfulness of the complaint.
13. The plaintiff admitted that certain cheques were taken from the policy holders and the said cheques were deposited in the account of the other policy holders. For the said acts, main plea of the plaintiff is that due to her illness, she employed a person who collected the said cheques and due to inadvertence, he deposited the same in the account of some other policy holder. Except one statement of PW1 during his cross examination that the plaintiff was suffering from rasouli, the plaintiff has not filed any document to prove that she was ill to the extent that she could not conduct the business. Even the period for which she remained ill is not mentioned. It is also not the case of the plaintiff that she ever filed the said documents with the defendants in support of her reply. Hence, it can be held that the 7/18 [ENTITY] Vs. LIC & Ors.
plaintiff has failed to prove that she was suffering for such kind of illness which prevented her from conducting the business of LIC agent.
14. Further, the plaintiff though pleaded that she employed an employee to carry on the business, however, the plaintiff has not disclosed even the name of the employee. She has not even mentioned the dates when he was employed and was removed. It is no where the case of the plaintiff that on coming to know the acts of her employee she took any action against him. On the contrary, in the present case, the plaintiff has been protecting the said employee. It is quite surprising that an employee who tarnished the reputation of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has left him without any action against him and on the contrary she is protecting him. The question arises why it is so. The defendants relied upon the letter dated 10.06.2004 Ex. DW1/6 (colly). The plaintiff has not disputed the said letter and its contents. Perusal of the said letter reveals that one complaint was received by the defendants from Shri [ENTITY] on 08.09.2003 regarding his four policies in his name and in the name of his family members wherein he complained that Shri [ENTITY], husband of the plaintiff had been collecting the premium from them in cash as well as in cheque however, the same had been misappropriated. It also mentioned about two other complaints dated
19.l5.2004 from one [ENTITY] and his wife [ENTITY] regarding their policies and they also complained that they handed over two cheques to the plaintiff and were cleared on 29.01.2004. However, later on they came to know that the same were misappropriated. In the said letter, it was mentioned that it was a regular practice of Shri [ENTITY] to obtain the huge amount from his clients and misappropriate the same. In view of thereof, it can be held that the plaintiff intentionally withheld the details of 8/18 [ENTITY] Vs. LIC & Ors.
the employee. Hence, an adverse inference can be drawn against her. As such, it can also be held that it was not the employee of the plaintiff who was collecting the cheques and cash from the policy holders but it was her own business who was doing the same. Therefore, the plaintiff has not disclosed the name of the employee intentionally because she had not employed any person rather it was her husband only who did all that and she protected her.
15. Counsel for the plaintiff pleaded that the said acts took place due to inadvertence. It is the own case of the plaintiff that that normally policy numbers are written on the back of the cheques issued by the policy holders. In the present case also the policy numbers were written on the back of the cheques, despite that the said mistake took place. Further, the bonafide mistake can take place once but if the said mistake becomes a regular practice then it does not remain a mistake only. From the letter Ex.DW 1/B the individual complaints are also annexed. One complaint is dated 08.09.2003 and other two complaints are dated 26.05.2004. As such, there was a gap of almost 09 months in between the said three complaints which covered 06 policy holders. The allegations made in the said complaints are of misappropriation of the amount by the plaintiff through her husband. It implies that it was not a single act of husband of the plaintiff rather her husband was habitual in collecting the premium from the policy holders and the depositing the same in other accounts relating to different policy holders. It is not the case of the plaintiff that her husband was a layman rather the complaint dated 08.09.2003 reveals that her husband was a Section Officer in DAV College, Evening Nehru Nagar, Delhi. It implies that her husband was an educated person. Hence, it cannot be believed that not 9/18 [ENTITY] Vs. LIC & Ors.
only the cash but he had also deposited the cheques in some wrong account by mistake. Hence, I am of the opinion that it was the conscious act of the husband of the plaintiff to misappropriate the money. However, the plaintiff has deliberately and intentionally concealed that fact that it was not the employee but her husband who used to collect the cheques. Therefore, it can be held that the plaintiff has the knowledge of the said acts of the husband and she tried her level best to conceal the same and also had not stopped him from doing the same. Hence, it implies that the plaintiff in collusion with her husband had been collecting the premium from the policy holders and then was depositing the same in the wrong accounts.
16. Counsel for the plaintiff pleaded that no personal hearing was not given to the plaintiff. Counsel for the plaintiff also pleaded that the charges were vague in nature and opportunities to cross examine the witnesses were not provided to the plaintiff which caused prejudiced to her. Counsel for the plaintiff also pleaded that the documents filed by the plaintiff were not considered while passing the termination order as well as order in appeal. Counsel for the plaintiff relied upon the judgments (i) [PRECEDENT]; (ii) [PRECEDENT]; and Kuldeep Sigh vs. Commissioner of Police AIR 1999 SC
17. In the judgment titled as [PRECEDENT], the Hon'ble Supreme court held:
22. in a case of a procedural provision which is not of a mandatory character, the complaint of violation has to be examined from the stand point of substantial compliance. The order passed in violation of such a provision can be set 10/18 [ENTITY] Vs. LIC & Ors.
aside only where such violation has occasioned prejudice to the delinquent employee. The Court or the Tribunal should inquire whether :
(a) the provision violated is of a substantive nature; or
(b) whether it is procedural in character ?
23. The departmental inquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service.
18. In [PRECEDENT], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
33. Justice means justice between both the parties. The interests of justice equally demand that the guilty should be punished and that technicalities and irregularities which do not occasion failure of justice are not allowed to defeat the ends of justice. Principles of natural justice are but the means to achieve the ends of justice. They cannot be perverted to achieve the very opposite end. That would be a counterproductive exercise.
34. We may summaries the principles emerging from the above discussion.
[These are by no means intended to be exhaustive and are evolved keeping in view the context of disciplinary enquiries and orders of punishment imposed by an employer upon the employee] :
(1) An order passed imposing a punishment on an employee consequent upon a disciplinary/departmental enquiry in violation of the rules/regulations/statutory provisions governing such enquiries should not be set aside automatically. The Court or the Tribunal should enquire whether (a) the provision violated is of a substantive nature, or (b) whether it is procedural in character.
(2) A substantive provision has normally to be complied with as explained hereinbefore and the theory of substantial compliance or the test of prejudice would not be applicable in such a case.
(3) In the case of violation of a procedural provision, the position is this :
procedural provisions are generally meant for affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity to the delinquent officer/employee. They are, generally speaking, conceived in his interest. Violation of any and every procedural provision cannot be said to automatically vitiate the enquiry held or order passed. Except cases falling under 'no notice', 'no opportunity' and 'no hearing' categories, the complaint of violation of procedural provision should be examined from the point of view of prejudice, viz., whether such violation has prejudiced the delinquent officer/employee in defending himself properly and effectively. If it is found that he has been so prejudiced, appropriate orders have to be made to repair and remedy the prejudice including setting aside the enquiry and/or the order of punishment. If no prejudice is established to have resulted therefrom, it is obvious, no interference is called for. In this connection, it may be remembered that there may be certain procedural provisions which are of a fundamental character, whose violation is by itself proof of prejudice. The Court may not insist on proof of prejudice in such cases. As explained in the body of the judgment, take a case where there is a provision expressly providing that after the evidence of the employer/government is over, the employee shall be given an opportunity to 11/18 [ENTITY] Vs. LIC & Ors.
lead defence in his evidence, and in a given case, the enquiry officer does not give that opportunity in spite of the delinquent officer/employee asking for it. The prejudice is selfevident. No proof of prejudice as such need be called for in such a case. To repeat, the test is one of prejudice, i.e., whether the person has received a fair hearing considering all things. Now, this very aspect can also be looked at from the point of view of directory and mandatory provisions, if one is so inclined. The principle stated under (4) hereinbelow is only another way of looking at the same aspect as is dealt with herein and not a different or distinct principle.
(4)(a) In the case of a procedural provision which is not of a mandatory character, the complaint of violation has to be examined from the standpoint of substantial compliance. Be that as it may, the order passed in violation of such a provision can be set aside only where such violation has occasioned prejudice to the delinquent employee.
(b) In the case of violation of a procedural provision, which is of a mandatory character, it has to be ascertained whether the provision is conceived in the interest of the person proceeded against or in public interest. If it is found to be the former, then it must be seen whether the delinquent officer has waived the said requirement, either expressly or by his conduct. If he is found to have waived it, then the order of punishment cannot be set aside on the ground of said violation. If, on the other hand, it is found that the delinquent officer/employee has not waived it or that the provision could not be waived by him, then the Court or Tribunal should make appropriate directions [include the setting aside of the order of punishment], keeping in mind the approach adopted by the Constitution Bench in [ENTITY]. The ultimate test is always the same viz., test of prejudice or the test of fair hearing, as it may be called.
(5) Where the enquiry is not governed by any rules/regulations/statutory provisions and the only obligation is to observe the principles of natural justice or, for that matter, wherever such principles are held to be implied by the very nature and impact of the order/action the Court or the Tribunal should make a distinction between a total violation of natural justice [rule of audi alteram partem] and violation of a facet of the said rule, as explained in the body of the judgment. In other words, a distinction must be made between "no opportunity"
and no adequate opportunity, i.e., between "no notice"/"no hearing" and "no fair hearing". (a) In the case of former, the order passed would undoubtedly be invalid [one may call it "void" or nullity if one chooses to]. In such cases, normally, liberty will be reserved for the Authority to take proceedings afresh according to law, i.e., in accordance with the said rule audi alteram partem. (b) But in the latter case, the effect of violation [of a facet of the rule of audi alteram partem] has to be examined from the standpoint of prejudice; in other words, what the Court or Tribunal has to see is whether in the totality of the circumstances, the delinquent officer/employee did or did not have a fair hearing and the orders to be made shall depend upon the answer to the said query. It is made clear that this principle No. 5 does not apply in the case of rule against bias, the test in which behalf are laid down elsewhere. (6) While applying the rule of audi alteram partem [the primary principle of natural justice] the Court/Tribunal/Authority must always bear in mind the ultimate and overriding objective underlying the said rule, viz., to ensure a fair hearing and to ensure that there is no failure of justice. It is this objective 12/18 [ENTITY] Vs. LIC & Ors.
which should guide them in applying the rule to varying situations that arise before them.
(7) There may be situations where the interests of state or public interest may call for a curtailing of the rule of audi alteram partem. In such situations, the Court may have to balance public/State interest with the requirement of natural justice and arrive at an appropriate decision."
19. In the present case, the plaintiff has not disclosed as to what documents she filed before the defendants which were not considered. Even no such documents are filed by the plaintiff in the present suit also.
20. In the show cause notice dated 06.09.2004 Ex.PW 1/6, the complete details of the policy holders who filed the complaints against the plaintiff and the cheques subject matter of the disputes were mentioned. In the show cause notice it was also clearly as to what charges had been leveled against the plaintiff. Admittedly, the plaintiff replied the said show cause notice which is Ex.PW 1/7. In the said reply, the plaintiff admitted the details of the policyholders, their cheques, the amount as well as the fact that the said cheques were deposited in the account of some other policyholders. The plaintiff had not sought even any document from the defendants to enable her to understand the charges. Rather in the said reply it was not mentioned at all that the plaintiff was not clear about the actual charges leveled against her and the consequences to be followed if the same stood prove against her. In nut shell, the plaintiff has not questioned the authenticity and the sanctity of the show cause notice and the charges leveled therein. It implies that the plaintiff was fully satisfied with the details provided in the show cause notice and clarity of charges mentioned therein. The plaintiff also admitted the facts which led into framing of the charges and issuance of the show cause notice. Hence, there is no substance in the plea of the plaintiff that the charges were vague in nature and details 13/18 [ENTITY] Vs. LIC & Ors.
were not provided which caused prejudiced to her. So far as the cross examination of the witnesses are concerned, the defendants had not examined any witness because as discussed above, the plaintiff admitted the details of the policyholders/complainants, their grievances, details of the cheques and the payment and also the charges leveled against her. As such, there was no disputed fact on which any oral evidence was required by the defendants.
21. Admittedly, the plaintiff challenged the termination order dated 14.06.2005 by way of appeal which was also dismissed on 13.06.2006. The plaintiff has failed to file any document to show that from the date when she received the show cause notice till filing of the appeal, she ever made any request or grievance before the defendants that she would be given personal hearing; an opportunity of cross examination of a particular witness or her submissions were not considered. Even the order dated 13.09.2006 no where suggests that the plaintiff made the grievances on the said account before the appellate authority. Rather, in the said order it is clearly mentioned that the plaintiff had not raised any new fact for consideration in her appeal. It is noted that the plaintiff raised the said grounds for the first time when she got issued a legal notice dated 03.12.2007 Ex.PW 1/13 upon the defendants. In the entire case, the plaintiff has not disputed the letter dated 10.06.2004 Ex.DW 1/B. Even in the cross examination no suggestion was given to DW1 that the said letter and the complaints filed alongwith it and the contents of the same were not genuine. Hence, it implies that the said grounds are merely an after thought.
22. So far as the plea of personal hearing is concerned, PW1 14/18 [ENTITY] Vs. LIC & Ors.
admitted that she had never approached the defendants for personal hearing. He deposed to the extent that the plaintiff filed the reply after given several opportunities by the defendants. In the present suit, the plaintiff examined the defendant's witness who brought the record of the inquiry. The plaintiff has not challenged any of the findings given in the said order. Rather, the plaintiff admitted the facts which were the basis of passing the said order. Even the reply Ex.PW 1/7 is completely silent as to the allegations made against her in the show cause notice. Instead she admitted the said allegations. The said reply is completely silent on the issue that the show cause notice was issued at the instance of some agents who were jealous of her. Not the least, vide the said reply, the plaintiff only tendered her unconditional apology to the defendants. It implies that detailed inquiry was conducted by the defendant. No where the case of the plaintiff that the said record was fabricated. It implies that the plaintiff never asked for the personal hearing and even avoided to file the reply to the show cause notice. It also implies that the defendants conducted the inquiry and gave several opportunities to the plaintiff to present her case, however, it was the plaintiff who avoided to face the enquiry. As discussed above, the said plea taken by the plaintiff is merely an after thought. Further, the plaintiff has failed to show as to what prejudiced had been caused to the plaintiff even if she had not been heard personally though she had given provided sufficient opportunities to present her case.
23. Counsel for the plaintiff pleaded that the complaints are lodged against the plaintiff had been withdrawn and she had also made the payment in the accounts of the right policy holders. The said act of the plaintiff is not sufficient to wash off her illegal acts and fraud committed by 15/18 [ENTITY] Vs. LIC & Ors.
her. It is apparent that under the apprehension of initiation of criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings against her, she had settled the said accounts. But the said acts cannot exonerate her from the disciplinary inquiries at the end of the defendants.
24. The [SECTION] provides that the competent authority can determine the appointment of an agent if he acts in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the corporation or to the interest of his policy holders. In the present case, it can be held that the plaintiff acted not only against the interest of the policy holders but also against the interest of the defendants. Under [SECTION] it is provided that except for fraud, the defendant should release the commission on the premium received in respect of the business secured by the agent in the manner provided therein.
25. In [PRECEDENT], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
"While considering the question of proportionality of sentence imposed on a delinquent at the conclusion of departmental inquiry, the court should also take into consideration, the mental set up of the delinquent, the type of duty to be performed by him and similar relevant circumstances which go into the decision making process. If the charged employee holds the position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct, in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands. The respondent belonged to a disciplined force. He was supposed to carry out instructions given to him by his superior. Not only he flouted the instructions but conducted himself in such a manner that he caused loss of part of pay to be deposited with the exchequer and loss of service revolver with ammunition which could be misused. When a statute gives discretion to the administrator to take a decision, the scope of judicial review would remain limited "
26. It was for the defendants to judge the punishment to be awarded to the plaintiff for her illegal acts considering the gravity of the 16/18 [ENTITY] Vs. LIC & Ors.
illegal acts. In the present case, it is a clear cut case of the fraud committed by the plaintiff with the policy holders as well as with the defendants while considering the said acts and their implication, the defendants awarded the punishment. The plaintiff has also failed to show as to how she was covered under clause 19 of the rules. As such, the law cited by the plaintiff is not of any use for her. In view thereof , the plaintiff has failed to make out any case to interfere with the same. In view of the foregoing discussions, issues no. 1 and 2 are decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants. ISSUE No.3
27. Onus to prove issue no.3 was on the plaintiff. In view of the findings given regarding the issue no.1 and 2, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction. Otherwise, counsel for the plaintiff pleaded that before awarding the punishment the respondent must have given a notice to the plaintiff and relied upon [SECTION] of [ACT]. Firstly, it is not the case of the plaintiff that she is in the civil services of the Union or of the State. Hence, the present petition is not applicable to the plaintiff. Even otherwise, the provisio to [SECTION] of the [ACT] as amended upto date provides that before awarding the punishment there is no need of issuance of notice to the party. The plaintiff also claimed Rs. 3 lacs per year as loss w.e.f 14.06.2005 till 31.03.2008 i.e. a total sum of Rs. 9 lacs as commission on the premium. She also claimed at the rate of Rs. 10% on the said amount which comes about Rs. 2,70,000/. Admittedly, the services of the plaintiff was terminated on 14.06.2005. Since thereafter, she was not in the job of the defendants. Accordingly, the plaintiff has failed to explain what is the basis of claiming the said amount from the defendants. The plaintiff claimed the said amount 17/18 [ENTITY] Vs. LIC & Ors.
only on the anticipation. Hence, the said claim is liable to be rejected. Therefore, there is no question of interest arises in the particular case. In view of the foregoing discussions, issues no. 3 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
ISSUE NO.4 (RELIEF)
28. In view of the foregoing discussions, the plaintiff is held not entitled for the reliefs as prayed for. Therefore, the suit is dismissed. No order as to cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT, Today i.e. on 23rd of April, 2011.
([ENTITY]) ADJ(CENTRAL07)/DELHI 23.04.2011 18/18 [ENTITY] Vs. LIC & Ors. 19/18 [ENTITY] Vs. LIC & Ors. 20/18 [ENTITY] Vs. LIC & Ors.