IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12329 of 2011 ============================================= Ashok Prasad, s/o- Sri Radha Krishna Prasad, r/o- House of Sanjay Kumar Santosh, Mohalla- Sivaji Nagar, House No. JKS-E 114, Chandpur Bella Road, Jakkanpur, Patna-1, Bihar .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Union Of India through its Finance Secretary, Government of India, New Delhi. 2. The Chairman, Life Insurance of India, “Yogachhem” Jeevan Bema Marg, Post Box No. 19953, Mumbai-400021. 3. The Regional Manager, L.I.C. of India, East Central Zone, Bhartiya Jeevan Beema Nigam, Jeevandeep Building, Exhibition Road, Patna. 4. The Sr. Division Manager, L.I.C. of India, Patna Divisional Office, “Jeevan Prakash” Mazharul Haque Path, Patna-1. 5. The Sr. Branch Manager, L.I.C. of India, Patna Branch-IV, New Dak Banglow Chowk, Patna. .... .... Respondent/s ============================================= Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Madhuri Lata For the Respondent/s : Mr. Raghib Ahsan(Asst.SG) For the respondent Nos 2 to 5: Mr. Raj Dular Sah. ============================================= 4 14-09-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent Life Insurance Corporation (for short “ the Corporation”). Petitioner is a Commission Agent appointed by the Corporation. There is no dispute that the case of the petitioner would be covered by Life Insurance Corporation of India Agent Regulation, 1972 (for short “Regulations, 1972”). For certain acts of omissions and commissions, the petitioner was put on notice by communication dated 8.4.2011 (Annexure-3) which was replied by him. The respondents thereafter came out with another order dated 28.4.2011 (Annexure-1) whereby his agency has been suspended with immediate effect and the petitioner was directed not to enter into the premises of Patna Branch IV till further orders. The said 2 order has been impugned in this application. Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the order contained in Annexure-1 on the ground that there is no provision for placing a Commission Agent under suspension. It has also been contended that by the aforesaid communication, he has been punished by restraining his entry into the premise of Patna Branch IV of L.I.C. It is also the grievance of the petitioner that he has not been paid his arrears of commission amount for the period anterior to the order. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the impugned action. It is submitted that the aforesaid order was passed pending enquiry in terms of Regulation 16(3) of the Regulation which reads as under: “16(3) Where the competent authority proposes to take action under Sub-regulation(1) it may direct the agent not to solicit, or procure new life insurance business until he is permitted by the competent authority to do so.” Learned counsel contended that by the impugned communication, petitioner has been simply prohibited from procuring new business during the pendency of the proceeding for his termination in terms of the provisions contained in the Regulation, 1972 . It is further submitted that the order prohibiting his entry into the premise of Patna Branch IV cannot be said to be a punishment as the petitioner has failed to show from the provision that any such punishment is provided thereunder. Learned counsel submitted that the aforesaid part of the order was found imperative considering the allegation for which the respondents have to take action against the petitioner for termination of his agency as also his past conduct. It is 3 further argued that the Regulation, 1972 provides appeal against the order passed by the authority. If the petitioner has any grievance against the order/communication impugned in the writ petition, he is free to file appeal thereagainst. It is next contended that the petitioner raised certain points in his reply which are being considered in the internal enquiry held for the purpose which is in progress and a final decision shall be taken within a reasonable time. As about the grievance of the petitioner that he has not been paid his outstanding commission amount, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation, relying on regulation 19 of the Regulations 1972, submits that payment of the outstanding/arrear of commission amount shall depend upon the final order to be passed against the petitioner. Learned counsel, with reference to the provisions contained in the Regulation 1972, impressed upon the Court that the provisions contained therein confer jurisdiction on the authorities to forfeit payment of such amount. Having heard the parties and on going through the materials on record, it appears that the suspension of his agency with immediate effect is in line with the provisions contained in Regulation 16(3) of the Regulations, 1972. By such suspension of his agency till final decision, the respondent has ensured that during the pendency of the proceeding, the petitioner does not solicit or procure new business. This Court, therefore, does not find any infirmity with that portion of the order. The next contention of the petitioner is that by restraining his entry into Patna Branch-IV, the 4 respondents have passed a punitive order which is not supported by the Regulation. It is contended that petitioner would always be required to visit the office in connection with the pending enquiry. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that if the past conduct is the only consideration for restraining him from entering into the premise of the said Branch, then the petitioner assures that he would not indulge in any untoward act while pursuing the matter pending before the authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the Regulation does not provide for forfeiture of the commission amount on the business already transacted by the petitioner. This Court would find that the issue relating to payment of arrear/outstanding commission amount is not dealt with in the order impugned in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to file a representation before the appropriate authority of the Corporation for payment of his arrears/outstanding amount of commission within two weeks from today whereafter the said respondent shall consider and dispose of the said representation within three weeks of its filing by a speaking order. This Court further directs the respondents to take a final decision in the pending proceeding within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Dealing with the submission of the petitioner that he has already been punished by restraining his entry into the precincts of Patna Branch-IV, it is found that the same is not supported by any provision of law. This Court finds force in the said submission of the 5 petitioner. Taking into consideration the stand taken by the petitioner and noticed hereinabove, this Court quashes that portion of the order contained in Annexure-1 whereby his entry into Patna Branch- IV was prohibited till further orders. The application stands disposed of with the aforesaid direction/observations. PANKAJ KUMAR/- (Kishore K. Mandal, J)