JUDGMENT :

Jayant Patel, J.

The present appeal arises against the order dated 21.9.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No.541 of 2001, whereby the decision of the respondent Corporation of termination of the agency and forfeiture of all the commissions has not been interfered with.

2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner was appointed as the agent on 8.2.1993 of Life Insurance Corporation of India. There is no dispute by the other side that the petitioner continued to satisfactorily worked as the agent until the incident in question, which arose in the year 1997. To say other words, the petitioner worked satisfactorily as the agent of the LIC of India for about 14 years. As per the petitioner, during the period of last 12 years of agency, the petitioner had procured business of more than Rs. 5 crore in as many as 683 policies with the total premium of Rs. 19.63 lac. However, it appears that for the policies, which were taken in the year 1995, in respect of about 15 policies, it was found that there were suppression of material facts and as per LIC of India, a fraud was placed by the original petitioner - appellant in connivance with the staff of the LIC of India. When it was disclosed, a show-cause notice was issued on 11.11.1997. Thereafter, the petitioner replied to the show-cause notice and ultimately vide order dated 19.12.1997, the final order came to be passed by the Senior Divisional Manager (Disciplinary Authority), whereby in exercise of power under Regulation 16(1)(a),(b) and (d) of (Agents) Regulations, 1972, the agency is terminated and all commission payable to the original petitioner - appellant as per Regulation No.19(1) of (Agents) Regulations, 1972 was ordered to be forfeited. The petitioner - appellant carried the matter in appeal, which failed. The petitioner - appellant further carried the matter by way of a memorial to the Chairman, which also failed. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred petition before this Court and the learned Single Judge, for the reasons recorded in the order, dismissed the petition. It is under these circumstances, the present appeal before us.

3. We have heard Mr. Parikh, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant - original petitioner and Mr. Clerk, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation.

4. As such, it appears from the record and more particularly, the reply filed by the petitioner to the show-cause notice and recital stated in the order that the involvement of the petitioner for the alleged fraud was established and, therefore, if on that basis the Corporation had taken decision that it was a case of fraud, wherein the petitioner and one of the employees of the Corporation, Purani had conspired for the said 15 policies resulting into the fraud, the decision for termination of the agency, in our view, does not call for interference when upon the examination of the facts, three authorities have concurrently found that the fraud was established. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant - original petitioner for assailing the decision of the LIC of India for termination of the agency on the ground of fraud.

5. However, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant - original petitioner that even if the it was a case of fraud, LIC of India could forfeit the commission qua the 15 policies only and it could not forfeit the commission of the policies, for which there was no dispute or there was no complaint and the work of such policies was satisfactorily, deserves consideration.

6. It was submitted by the learned Counsel Mr. Clerk for the respondent that the Regulation 19 provides that in a case where the fraud is found, all commissions in respect of all policies irrespective of the fact that whether the fraud pertains to the said policy or not can be forfeited.

7. Whereas, the contention of the learned Counsel for the original petitioner - appellant is that