IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1639 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 31-10-2007 in WP No.15576 of 2000 on the file of the High Court.) Between: The Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad and another. ..... Appellants And L.Bheema, r/o.H.No.20-330/1, Thatikolu Road, Devarakonda, Nalgonda District. .....Respondent. Counsel for the Appellants: Sri D.V.Sitharam Murty. Counsel for the Respondent: Sri A.Rajasekhara Reddy. The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per T.Meena Kumari,J) This Writ Appeal is filed against the order dated 31-10- 2007 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court, whereby Writ Petition No.15576 of 2000 was dismissed. The brief facts of the case of respondent-writ petitioner are that he was an agent of the Life Insurance Corporation of India. On 26-8-1999 a charge sheet was issued to him by appellant No.1 asking him to submit his explanation as to why he submitted a false claim on the life of one Sri Eslavath Somla for a sum of Rs.50,000/- as assured in Policy bearing No.644015141, though he is alive, and the said claim was settled and paid by the Corporation. In response to the same, he submitted explanation denying the said charge. But, however, by order dated 14-10-1999, appellant No.1, without considering the explanation and conducting any enquiry, terminated his agency and also forfeited the entire commission to which he is entitled. Aggrieved by the said order, he filed an appeal before the appellate authority- respondent No.2, which was dismissed by order 10-6-2000. Questioning those orders he filed the said Writ Petition. While allowing the said Writ Petition, the learned single Judge observed that the impugned order passed by appellant No.1 is without following the principles of natural justice and that it is not a speaking order. Heard Sri D.V.Sitharam Murthy, learned Standing Counsel for Life Insurance Corporation of India, appearing for the appellants; Sri A.Rajasekhar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner; and perused the record. Sri D.V.Sitharam Murthy, learned counsel for the appellants, contended that on the basis of the claim papers submitted by the respondent, the Corporation settled the claim and that, subsequently, they came to know that the claimant is alive. He further contended that the respondent is not an employee of the Corporation to conduct a disciplinary enquiry; that Rule 16 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulation, 1972 does not provide for a detailed enquiry to be conducted for terminating an agency, but it only provides for a reasonable opportunity to show cause against termination; and that the appellants, after considering the explanation of the respondent and following the due procedure prescribed under the said Regulation, passed the order terminating his agency. Hence, the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge is illegal and is liable to be set aside. Sri A.Rajasekhar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that the respondent is not an agent of the said policy and that he has not processed the claim papers, but he only identified the claimant as the person dead. He further submitted that the appellants, without considering the explanation submitted by the respondent and without conducting any enquiry, passed the order terminating his agency and forfeiting his commission, which is against the principles of natural justice. He further submitted that even if enquiry is ordered to be conducted now, it will not be possible to procure the papers as nearly nine years have elapsed. In the light of the aforementioned submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, we have carefully examined the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge. We are in agreement with the view expressed by the learned single Judge that the order dated 14-10-1999 passed by appellant No.1 is not a speaking order. However, in view of the seriousness of the matter - viz., claiming of insurance amount in respect of a person, who is alive, stating that he is dead - we are of the view that liberty should be given to the appellant-Corporation to conduct a fresh enquiry into the matter and pass a reasoned order within a period of three months, after affording reasonable opportunity to the respondent-writ petitioner. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is disposed of directing the appellant-Corporation to conduct a fresh enquiry into the matter and pass a reasoned order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after affording reasonable opportunity to the respondent-writ petitioner. The appellant-Corporation is also directed to furnish all the relevant documents, which are required by the respondent-writ petitioner during the enquiry. _______________________ T. MEENA KUMARI, J. ___________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J. Dt.21–01-2009. MNR