IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 25TH OCTOBER 2011 / 3RD KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 27501 of 2011(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- AMMINI P.R., AGED 60 YEARS, W/O. LATE P.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN, L.I.C. AGENT CODE NO.00921792, PATHIYARIL HOUSE, WEST NADA, IRINJALAKUDA. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE ZONAL MANAGER, L.I.C. OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI-600002. 2. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, (DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY), LIC OF INDIA DIVISIONAL OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682018. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, L.I.C. OF INDIA, BRANCH OFFICE, IRINJALAKUDA THRISSUR SIT. PIN-680121. 4. THE CHAIRMAN OF THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, CENTRAL OFFICE, YOGAKSHEMA MUMBAI-400021. BY ADV. SRI.S.ESWARAN,SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK WP(C).No. 27501 of 2011(K) --------------------------------------- APPENDIX ------------------- PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS -------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BY E.S. BINDIYA DATED 6-9-04. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 9-4-2005. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 9-5-2005. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY DATED 18-11-05. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 6-1-06. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06-1-07 OF THE ZONAL MANAGER. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26-2-08 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC NO.8557/2006 DATED 7-10-2009. EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER WITH COVERING LETTER ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 29-3-2010. EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 12-4-2010. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL --------------------------------------- / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE VK ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).27501/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 25th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner was appointed as an agent of the first respondent. While so, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against her under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, 1972 and the allegations were one of misappropriation. Proceedings were concluded by Ext.P4 order passed by the disciplinary authority terminating the agency and forfeiture of renewal commission payable to the petitioner under Rule 16(1)(b) and Rule 19 of the aforesaid Rules. 2. In an appeal filed by the petitioner, the termination was confirmed and the appeal was rejected by Ext.P7 order of the appellate authority. Challenging Ext.P7, petitioner filed W.P.(C). 8557/2006 before this Court and that writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P8 judgment giving liberty to the petitioner to file a memorial under Regulation 24 of the Regulations and Chairman of the LIC was directed to deal with the same with an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a memorial and by Ext.P9, the memorial was rejected. However, the order forfeiting the renewal commission was deleted. It is challenging Ext.P9, this W.P.(C).27501/11 2 writ petition is filed. 3. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that contrary to the directions in Ext.P8 judgment of this Court, the first respondent disposed of the memorial without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. According to the petitioner, though she was issued a notice of hearing, on account of her inconvenience to attend the hearing, she approached the third respondent with a request for adjournment and that the third respondent promised her to convey her request to the first respondent. It is stated that despite the above, stating that the petitioner chose to be absent, the memorial was rejected. 4. A reading of Ext.P9 shows that a personal hearing was scheduled on 15.2.2010 and notice of hearing was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 2.2.2010. This was served on the petitioner and the office of the first respondent did not receive any request from the petitioner for adjournment. In fact, in Ext.P9 order, it is further stated that the first respondent made enquiries with the concerned Branch, Divisional and Zonal Office to find out whether any communication was received from the petitioner expressing her inability to attend the hearing and that no W.P.(C).27501/11 3 communication was received by any one of the authorities. 5. Thus, this is a case where notice of hearing was served on the petitioner and petitioner did not appear for hearing, and therefore, the first respondent proceeded with the matter and decided the issue. 6. As far as the case of the petitioner that she had requested the third respondent for an adjournment of the hearing is concerned, it should be stated that the petitioner has not produced the alleged request which she claims to have made to the third respondent nor has the petitioner produced any response that was received from the third respondent. In such circumstances, I am not persuaded to accept the unsubstantiated contention that the memorial filed by the petitioner was decided denying her an opportunity of hearing. On the other hand, I am inclined to think that this is a case where an opportunity of hearing was offered to the petitioner but was not availed of by her. 7. As far as the misconduct found against the petitioner is concerned, as already noticed, it is one of misappropriation of funds which finding has been arrived at by the disciplinary authority after W.P.(C).27501/11 4 affording an opportunity of hearing in terms of the Regulations. Such a conclusion has been confirmed by the appellate authority and the first respondent. This concurrent finding of the fact, arrived at by three authorities, cannot be upset in a writ petition, unless materials have been produced by the petitioner to show that the same is perverse. Nothing has been placed before this Court to reach such a conclusion. Therefore, on factual finding also, no interference is warranted. 8. As far as the proportionality of the punishment imposed on the petitioner is concerned, it is seen the disciplinary authority had terminated the Agency of the petitioner and also ordered forfeiture of the renewal commission. Latter part of the petition has been modified by the fourth respondent in Ext.P9 order. Having regard to the fact that the misconduct found is one of the misappropriation, I am inclined to think that the termination of agency is a punishment which is not disproportionate to the proved misconduct. Writ petition fails and it is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs