The judgment established the importance of proportionality and necessity in administrative decisions, emphasizing the need for a rational connection between the measures taken and the objective, and the least restrictive alternatives when curtailing fundamental rights.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. Heard Mr. A.R. Bhuyan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Nath, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The petitioner herein has assailed the termination of his agency and forfeiture of his commission and thereby had challenged the various orders including the order dated 25.03.2015.

3. From the materials on record, it reveals that the petitioner herein was issued an agency licence in the year 1997. During the course of time, the petitioner claimed to have obtained various policies and rendered business to the respondent Corporation. The dispute arises on account of an insurance policy being made of one Bhabani Kalita (since deceased). The record reveals that one Bhabani Kalita had approached the petitioner for a policy amounting to Rs.50,000/-. As a proof of his age, Late Bhabani Kalita produced the age certificate from the Head Master, Hekra High School wherein it was certified that the said Late Bhabani Kalita was 12 years as on 31.12.1958. On the basis of the said certificate, the petitioner submitted the proposal stating inter-alia that he knew Late Bhabani Kalita “since long.” Consequently, on the basis of the said certificate and the proposal submitted by the petitioner, an insurance contract was entered into by and between Late Bhabani Kalita and the respondent Corporation on 30.03.2005. Subsequent thereto, on 18.08.2005, Late Bhabani Kalita expired. On the basis of the policy, a claim was made and the death certificate of the Gaonbura was placed before the respondent Corporation dated 17.03.2006 which shows that the age of Late Bhabani Kalita, at the time of death, was 82 years. The respondent Corporation initiated an enquiry against the petitioner by issuing a show cause notice on 03.03.2009. It is also relevant to take note of that prior to the issuance of the show-cause notice, enquiry so made revealed that the certificate on the basis of which the insurance contract was entered into was a fake certificate as was certified by the Principal of Hekra Higher Secondary School stating inter-alia that the said certificate was not issued by the said institution. The petitioner submitted the show cause reply and pursuant thereto, an order was passed on 25.03.2009. In terms with the said order, the petitioner’s agency licence was terminated on the ground of fraud and further there was forfeiture of the commission in terms with Regulation 19 of the Life insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulation, 1972 (for short ‘the Regulation’). The petitioner duly submitted his representation before the Senior Divisional Manager, Life insurance Corporation, Bongaigaon Divisional office, however to no avail. Thereupon, the petitioner filed an appeal on 22.10.2009 before the respondent No. 1 in terms with Regulation 23 of the Regulation. The said appeal which was filed by the petitioner was forwarded by the respondent No. 3 to the respondent No. 1 with a recommendation for reinstatement on the ground that the petitioner is productive agent but unfortunately due to one fake certificate submitted by the policy holder he was held guilty and it was not an intentional act on the part of the petitioner. Subsequent thereto, an order was passed on 11.01.2010 whereby the appeal of the petitioner was rejected thereby upholding the termination order dated 25.03.2009.

4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition which was registered and numbered as WP (C) No. 3422/2010 on the ground that the said Appellate Order was passed without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and also not taking into account the recommendation so made by the respondent No. 3. The said writ petition, i.e. WP (C) No. 3422/2010 was disposed of vide an order dated 16.10.2014 observing inter-alia that neither the Disciplinary Authority nor the Appellate Authority had considered the recommendation for reinstatement made by the Senior Branch Manager of th