IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WPMS No. 1391 of 2005 Udai Singh Pal ……. Petitioner Versus Life Insurance Corporation of India and another. ……. Respondents Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Alok Mehra, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Manoj Tiwari, Advocate for respondents. 13th February, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.12.2003 passed by Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dehradun, Division /respondent no. 2 and order dated 31.1.2005 passed by Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai / respondent no. 1 (contained as Annexure No. 9 and 12 respectively to the writ petition) before this Court. Admittedly, the petitioner was Life Insurance Agent. The charges against the petitioner were that he was instrumental in renewing a Life Insurance Policy of a person, which was renewed on 23.5.2002 the day, the said person had actually died. A show cause notice dated 15th October, 2003 issued by the Senior Divisional Manager, LIC, Dehradun was, therefore, served on the petitioner by the Corporation, wherein it has been stated that the person namely Sunil Kumar had a policy, which had lapsed, but was renewed by the petitioner by introducing him in the relevant forms etc. on 23.5.2002, when on record, Sri Sunil Kumar Yadav was medically examined at Dehradun at 11.30 a.m. the same day. However, even before the policy could be renewed at 12 noon, Sri Sunil Kumar died in Meerut at 11 a.m. on the same day. As such, the petitioner was charged that he has not discharged his duties in good faith, but in fact acted in a manner prejudicial to the Corporation and committed a fraud by introducing vague and bogus Declaration of Good Health Medical Examination Report for revival of the Policy. Therefore, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and a show cause notice was given to him to explain within 15 days as to why the penalty of termination of his agency, along with the forfeiture of commission be not imposed upon him. As a reply to Show Cause Notice, the petitioner has stated that the policy was initially done in the year, 1994 by the petitioner, but subsequently, thereafter, Sri Sunil Kumar Yadav was continuing to pay the premium on his own and the petitioner was in no way involved. However, the said policy had lapsed and therefore, on 23rd May, 2002 Sri Yadav requested him to renew the policy. The petitioner admits that he gave the relevant form to Sri Yadav and had actually filled a form and directed Sri Yadav to deposit the same at the relevant office. The petitioner admits that he has seen Mr. Yadav at 5.30 a.m. on 23.5.2002. The explanation dated 3.11.2003, which the petitioner had given before the concerned Authorities, is annexed and marked as Annexure 6 to the writ petition. The Authorities concerned were not satisfied with the reply given by the petitioner and his Agency was terminated. Aggrieved the petitioner filed an Appeal the Zonal Manager, Kanpur, which was dismissed. Both these orders were challenged by way of an Appeal before the Chairman LIC, Mumbai. The Chairman LIC after considering the entire facts of the matter has also rejected the appeal of the petitioner. Another relevant fact, which is necessary to be noted at this stage is that at the final appellate stage, the petitioner has admitted all the charges. In fact, the petitioner admitted having ensured the policy of a dead person and also that he had played fraud against the Corporation. Nothing further needs to be said in this matter. The relationship between the Principal and Agent is primarily of trust. There is no doubt that the petitioner has betrayed this trust. His agency has rightly been terminated. All the orders, which have been impugned by the petitioner are just and proper and there is no reason for this court to interfere in the matter. 3. Consequently, writ petition stands dismissed along with all pending application. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 13.2.2009 Rathour