2002 Supreme(AP) 1191

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : L.NARSIMHA REDDY
G.Sreenivasa Reddy - Appellant
Versus
LIC of India Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 10-10-02

Headnote:

Civil Matter – Civil Law - Agents Regulation, 1972 - Regulation 16 (1) - Petitioner was issued a show cause notice where he was required to explain about false claim of travelling expenses while attending the wdrt - Petitioner submitted his explanation - Since same was not properly received, he sent it once again - It was one year later that petitioner was issued Charge Sheet-cum-Show Cause notice - Contents of earlier notice were repeated, and he was directed to show cause as to why his agency should not be terminated - Petitioner submitted his explanation - Respondents passed terminating agency of petitioner under Regulation 16 (l) (b) Regulations, 1972 - Petitioner challenges same in this writ petition - Several contentions, such as, violation of principles of natural justice, failure to frame charges, infliction of punishment without holding enquiry, falsity of allegations - Petitioner as Agent, his achievements in business, his attending the wdrt and his entitlement to receive II Class A/c. fares are not dispute - It is stated that on a complaint received by them, they got matter verified from Chief Booking Supervisor, khammam, who in his letter, alleged to have informed that ticket numbers furnished by petitioner do not relate to his travel - On allegation made by petitioner that no specific charges were framed, much less was held, respondents contended that Charge sheet-cum-Show Cause Notice conforms to requirements in this regard - As regards failure to hold enquiry, justification pleaded by respondents is that since petitioner did not come forward with any valid material, they did not propose to conduct enquiry - Petitioner, submits that action of respondents in terminating agency of petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice - He submits that entitlement of petitioner to claim II class A/c. fare and factum of petitioner attending WDRT are not in dispute - According to him, though petitioner was entitled to claim II A/c. charges for onward and return journey, petitioner claimed II A/c. charges only for onward journey and claimed ordinary II class charges for return journey, which shows that he did not want to make any false claim - He contends that show cause notice itself was on basis of predetermined notions and conclusions, which were already arrived at - So-called Charge sheet-cum-Show Cause Notice did not contain even a single charge, much less, basis of allegation in support of charge - It is also his case that when respondents wanted to inflict punishment of termination, it was incumbent upon them to conduct a departmental enquiry and termination of agency without conducting enquiry was unsustainable in law - He also submits that terminating agency of petitioner and depriving him of earnings to tune of about per month, on basis of such a frivolous and unfounded allegations were shockingly disproportionate and cannot be sustained under any circumstances – Held., Court view to strip him of coveted position, cannot be brushed aside - It is rather unimaginable that an agent, who fetched business of crores of rupees to LIC, is meted out with such a treatment on so trivial charge - Punishment being shocking conscience of Court or being disproportionate are too difficult to be defined - Understood only with reference to certain instances - present case provides best example for both categories - Plea of respondents that agency is based on trust and confidence and instance of dishonesty involving even trivial amounts cannot be tolerated is too spacious to be accepted - It is not understandable as to how question of trust and confidence are involved in this case at all - In his explanation, petitioner graphically explained manner in which he travelled - No discussion was undertaken about it - Incriminating material in possession of 2nd respondent was not made available to petitioner - No enquiry was held - Very fact that petitioner claimed a II A/c fare for one way journey and non-A/c fare for return journey demonstrates that he did not intend to make any false claims - In fact petitioner was entitled to travel and claim A/c. fares for both journeys - It was not as if he has chosen costliest mode of transport. By any standard, one chosen by petitioner was cheapest in given set of circumstances - Writ Petition Allowed.