C.W.P. No.14834 of 1999 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.14834 of 1999 (O&M) Date of Decision:03.02.2010 Jarnail Singh Lamba ....Petitioner Versus Life Insurance Corporation of India and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. Sanjay Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate with Ms. Gaganpreet Kaur, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The writ petition seeks for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the charge-sheet-cum-show cause notice issued to the petitioner on 18.12.1995. The petitioner was an agent bearing Code No.3092-161 with LIC and the charge-sheet had been issued to him on an allegation that he had made false premium installments in the ledger sheets of 255 policies involving an amount of Rs.3,15,230/-, illegally, willfully and fraudulently to derive undue financial benefit out of it. That by such conduct, he had acted in a manner detrimental and prejudicial to the interest of the Corporation and the policy holders. The show cause notice was to elicit why his agency shall not be terminated under the relevant C.W.P. No.14834 of 1999 -2- Rules. An explanation had been given by him by his reply dated 05.01.1996 and after taking the explanation, the order was passed on 29.11.1997 terminating the agency with forfeiture of the commission with the observation “I am satisfied that reasonable and adequate opportunity has been afforded to Sh. J.S. Lamba to defend himself fully and the principle of natural justice have been observed in the matter. Taking all the aspects into consideration in totality, I conclude that all the said charges against Sh. J.S. Lamba, Agency Code No.3092-161 are conclusively proved against and have further come to the conclusion that he is not a fit person to be retained as an agent on the books of the Corporation.” Against the order, he preferred an appeal and the appeal was also dismissed. A further memorial to the Chairman of the Corporation was also dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he had an excellent track record and even after the issuance of charge-sheet, he had been sent to several conventions and his licence had been renewed and if the averments in the charge had been true, the licence itself would not have been renewed. In my view, the whole case has to be seen from a simple point of whether a show cause notice and a reply obtained were sufficient compliance of principles of natural justice or not. In a case where the charge was that he had manipulated some entries, the finding of guilt by an order that an opportunity had been given to give a reply would not satisfy the principles of natural justice. In the very nature of the charge unless an opportunity had been given to the C.W.P. No.14834 of 1999 -3- affected person to test the statements of the persons relied on by the Corporation to enter a finding that the charge-sheet had been established, a very serious hardship could entail. This Hon'ble Court while referring to the appeal provisions relating to Regulation 23 of LIC (Agents) Regulations, 1972 held in Gurmit Singh Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd. and others 2006(3) SCT 193 that if the regulation mandated affording of personal hearing by the Appellate Authority, the appeal dismissed without affording such personal hearing could not be sustained. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would, therefore, submit that even if this judgment were to be applied, the matter would only require to be sent to the Appellate Authority for consideration and it ought not to result in the whole enquiry to be started de novo by the Disciplinary Authority. In my view, if the right of personal hearing should be read into the provisions of Regulation 23 that deals with appeal, as necessary for satisfying the principle of natural justice, a fortioari the same principle ought to avail to the petitioner for a greater reason before the Officer, who finds the person guilty. The charge of tampering with records could not be said to be established by mere opportunity given to the person to show cause against the charge. The opportunity in such case must be meaningful opportunity when it would be possible for the petitioner to not merely explain his own conduct but also put to test any statement of third parties that suggest that he had tampered with any of the official records or made false entries in the records maintained by the LIC. The Disciplinary Authority cannot rely on C.W.P. No.14834 of 1999 -4- any statement supporting the charges without giving such opportunity to the petitioner to confirm them by cross- examination. Learned counsel appearing for the Corporation would submit that the regulation does not contemplate such a personal hearing and the principles of natural justice would be satisfied if the show cause notice was issued and a reply was taken. The principle of audi alteram partem admits of several facets. What is a meaningful opportunity would depend on each case. For an allegation of tampering with the records or making false entries, a mere statement in reply is no opportunity if the Disciplinary Authority ultimately relies on other materials or other statements, which are not put to the person against whom the charge is levied. By the tenor of charge-sheet levied against the petitioner, I am of the view that the principles of natural justice would be adequately met only, if he was given an opportunity to represent himself in person before the Disciplinary Authority and then he shall also be given an opportunity to cross-examine any person whose statement is sought to be relied on by the Disciplinary Authority. Remitting the matter merely to the Appellate Authority for giving him an opportunity to present himself and explain his case, in my view, will not meet the ends of justice. 3. The impugned order (Annexure P-18) is set aside and the petitioner shall be given the opportunity as referred above. The date of enquiry may be communicated within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order and the Disciplinary Authority shall endeavour to complete the enquiry within a period of 12 C.W.P. No.14834 of 1999 -5- weeks from then on. The entitlement of the petitioner to receive the commission will abide by the ultimate decision taken by the authority after a fullfledged enquiry as stated above. 4. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 03, 2010 Pankaj*