The main legal point established in the judgment is that fraudulent actions, including dishonored cheques and misrepresentation, can justify the termination of an agency and forfeiture of renewal commission under the relevant regulations.

( 1 ) PETITIONER by this writ petition impugns the Orders dated 20. 1. 2002, 15. 5. 2002 and 17. 4. 2003 passed by respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively by which the petitioner s agency was terminated and the renewal commission forfeited. Petitioner also seeks a direction for restoration of the agency from the date of termination with continuity of benefits. A direction for payment of renewal commission together with interest is also sought.

( 2 ) PETITIONER had earlier filed W. P. (C ). No. 5389/2003, which was disposed of with a direction to the Chairman, LIC to decide the memorial of the petitioner dated 30th September, 2002. The said memorial was rejected by the Chairman LIC by the impugned Order dated 17. 4. 2004. Notice was issued in the writ petition on 3rd November, 2003. Vide Order dated 12th February, 2004, respondent nos. 4 and 5, namely, the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority and Union of India were deleted as parties. Cost of Rs. 1500/- was imposed and time to file counter affidavit was granted.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner today sought time to file rejoinder. On 12. 2. 2004, two weeks time was granted to the petitioner to file the rejoinder. Rejoinder has not been filed. I see no ground to grant adjournment for filing of rejoinder. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he received the counter affidavit rather late. Considering the nature of issues which arise for consideration in the writ petition, rejoinder even otherwise is not necessary.

( 4 ) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent at some length. It is submitted that petitioner has been an agent of long standing with the LIC. Petitioner claims that she was victimised on account of a complaint made by her against Assistant Branch Manager and Branch Manager of unit 312. Hence this arbitrary and malafide action against the petitioner by respondent no. 3. Learned counsel for respondents 1-3 refutes this and submits that the allegation of mala fides is an after-thought and does not even find any mention in the reply to the Show Cause Notice.

( 5 ) IT is not in dispute before me that a Show Cause Notice dated 5. 10. 2001, had been duly issued to the petitioner proposing the penalty of termination of agency under Regulation 16 (1) (b) of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as `regulations ) and forfeiture of renewal commission under Regulation 19 (1) of Regulations.

( 6 ) IN the said Show Cause Notice, annexed as Annexure P-13 at page 58-59 of the paper book, respondent had brought out that the petitioner had submitted a proposal for insuring the life of Shri Arshad Ullah Khan and tendered a cheque no. 416840 dated 15. 2. 2000 for Rs. 8,840/ -. The said cheque was dishonoured. The allegation against the petitioner is that she used to receive monies in advance from the prospective persons seeking insurance and then at her convenience issue her own cheques which in a number of cases got dishonoured. Respondent in the Show Cause Notice had also set out the particulars of the persons whose proposals were submitted by petitioner and cheques issued by her got dishonoured. The insurance policies of these persons were received undelivered at the branch office with the comments "no such person at the address". Respondent found these activities of the petitioner to be prejudicial to the interest of the Corporation and proceeded to take action under Regulation 16 (1) (b) of Regulations for termination of the agency and forfeiture of the renewal commission. The petitioner, in reply to the show cause notice, admitted her fault by stating :

"while I once again, in an unqualified manner, make a submission that there was a mistake on my part in the use of discretion. . . . . "

( 7 ) PETITIONER sought to explain her actions by pleading that since clients/customers at times suggest that they would make the payment later and the policy could be processed n