-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1748 OF 2008 Brahamanand R. Pandey Age 35 years, Hindu Indian Inhabitant of Mumbai Occupation LIC Agent Residing at Flat 102, E-Wing Gaurav Residency, Next to Cinemax Theatre and Mayor Bungalow Kanakiya, Mira Road (E), Dist. Thane--401 109. : Petitioner V/s. 1. Life Insurance Corporation of India, through The Chairman Western Zone, Office at Yogakshema Jeevan Bhima Marg, Mumbai--400 021. 2. Zonal Manager Life Insurance Corporation of India, Western Regional Office at Yogakshema Jeevan Bhima Marg, Mumbai--400 021. 3. The Competent Authority Senior Divisional Manager,MDO III, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Western Regional New India Building, 1st floor Santacruz (W), Mumbai--400 054. 4. Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, having its office at Branch Code No.926, Mukut 20 B, S.V. Road, Opp. Jarimari Temple, Bandra (W), Mumbai--400 050. : Respondents ... Mr.Akhilesh Upadhyay for the petitioner. Mr.H.V.Kode i/b. The Law Point for the respondents. ... CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J.& S.A. BOBDE, J. Date of Reserving ) : 22.10.2008 the Judgement. ) -: 2 :- Date of Pronouncing) : 27.11.2008 the Judgement. ) JUDGEMENT (Per S.A.Bobde,J.) 1. The petitioner has challenged the final order dated 11.7.2007 issued by the Senior Divisional Manager of the Life Insurance Corporation of India terminating his agency with forfeiture of renewal commission under rules 16(1)(b) and 19(1) of the LIC of India (Agents) Rules, 1972. 2. In a show cause notice dated 15.5.2007, the petitioner was charged with taking cash from proposer and instead of depositing the cash at the cash counter, depositing a cheque. Further, in order to cover up his lapse, the petitioner is said to have alleged that one Gomes, Cashier of the Branch, had collected the cash but had not issued receipts for the same. The petitioner was charged with having acted in a fraudulent manner prejudicial to the interest of the Corporation and called upon to show cause why his agency should not be terminated under rule 16(1)(b) with forfeiture of renewal commission under rule 19(1). The petitioner submitted a reply. In the reply, he claimed that on 29.12.2006, the proposer made a payment to him in respect of a new policy. He tried to deposit the cash. However, Gomes, the Cashier, did not give him a receipt for the cash and he, therefore, made a complaint to the police and Home Minister and to the Branch Manager. He claimed that he was pressurised by the Branch Manager to withdraw the police complaint and since he did not, the -: 3 :- Branch Manager prevented him from going to the Branch. He, therefore, made a cheque payment since he had not received a receipt for the cash. According to him, he could not make cash payment even on 12.6.2007 since he did not have cash. On 5.2.2007 he did not make payment because he was afraid that if he was not given a receipt again by Gomes, he would be helpless. 3. The petitioner’s explanation was considered by the competent authority who has rejected the explanation in toto. The petitioner’s explanation has been rejected because it is observed that on 30.12.2006 when the petitioner is alleged to have made payment in cash, but without having given any receipt, there is no excess cash which obviously would have been there if cash had been received without issuing a receipt. This has been certified by the Head of the Department of Accounts. Therefore, there is no substance in the petitioner’s apprehension that receipt could not have been given to him later on. The competent authority has further observed that by making payment on behalf of the proposer by using his own cheque, the petitioner has failed to safeguard the interest of the proposer. The competent authority has, therefore, considered it appropriate to terminate the petitioner’s agency on the ground that he has acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Corporation or to the interest of the policy holder. It must be noted that the agent of the Life Insurance Corporation holds a -: 4 :- position of trust between the Corporation and the insured. He cannot be expected to deal with the amounts placed in his hand in a fraudulent or in a careless manner which the petitioner has found to have done. It must be noted that the petitioner claims that he was Cashier and one Oza quarrelled with him over cash and he was thrashed with fist blows and threatened. But there does not seem to be any concrete evidence of this version. In any case, no excess cash has been found on 30.12.2006. On the other hand, the competent authority has specifically observed in the order that the Head of the Department of Accounts has confirmed that the petitioner has not lodged any complaint with him in regard to the non-issue of the receipt for the payment said to have been made by him on 30.12.2006 and this appears to have been confirmed by the Senior Branch Manager in writing. Even otherwise, we are not inclined to go into the rival contentions on facts. The order of the competent authority on facts must be accepted unless it is shown to be vitiated by any perversity or conjectures based on no evidence. We find that the impugned order does not suffer from any error of law apparent on the record. There is, therefore, no merit in the petition which is hereby dismissed. Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE -: 5 :- Sd/- S.A. BOBDE, J.