K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J.

1. The respondents in the Original Petition are the appellants. The respondent herein filed the Original Petition challenging Exts.P5, P7 and P9 orders.

2. The brief facts of the case are the following:

The first respondent was an LI.C. agent. He was a Crore-pathi for the last several years and also a member of the Chairman’s Club. While so, it was noticed that towards the payment of premium for some policies, cheques of the first respondent were issued. Thereupon, he was served with Ext.P1 show cause notice dated 13.4.2000 calling upon him to explain under what circumstance he has issued the cheques towards payment of premium for the seven policies mentioned therein between January and March 2000. He submitted Ext.P2 reply. In the reply, the respondent stated that most of his policy holders are persons belonging to Sakthikulangara and Neendakara area, who are engaged in fishing and related activities. During off-season, they were not able to remit the premium. He used to collect moderate amount everyday from them and then issue the cheques towards the premium in advance from his bank account, even though premium amounts due were not collected in full and it was later collected in small amounts throughout the year. In some cases, the cheques had bounced since he was not able to arrange the amount in time. He has stated that he realised the mistake and will not repeat the mistake in future. Thereafter, he was issued with Ext.P3 notice, asking him to show cause why his agency should not be terminated under R. 16(1) of the LIC of India (Agents) Regulations, 1972 and his commission be forfeited under Rule 19(1) thereof. He submitted Ext.P4 reply. The competent authority considered his reply and issued Ext.P5 order terminating his agency and also forfeiting the renewal commission under R. 19(1) of the aforementioned Regulations. He filed Ext.P6 appeal before the Zonal Manger. The said appeal was dismissed by Ext.P7 order. Then he submitted Ext.P8 memorial before the Chairman, which came to be dismissed by Ext.P9 order dated 24.9.2003. So, the Original Petition was filed challenging Exts.P5, P7 and P9 orders. The appellants filed a counter affidavit supporting the impugned orders. The learned Single Judge after hearing both sides, confirmed the termination of agency, but interfered with the direction to forfeit the commission under R. 19(1) of the Regulations. The learned Single Judge after referring to Rr.15 and 16 came to the conclusion that Commission can be forfeited under R. 19(1) for fraud, if only there is a finding by a competent criminal court that the agent has committed fraud. The appellants, being seriously aggrieved by the above findings and consequential direction of the learned Single Judge, filed this Writ Appeal.

3. Sri.R.S.Kalkura, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that R. 15 deals with termination of agency without notice on conviction by the criminal court for certain offences including misappropriation, fraud etc. R. 16 contemplates termination of agency for certain lapses. In such cases, the delinquent agent will be given show cause notice and after considering his explanation, the agency will be terminated, if the explanation is not satisfactory. In this case action has been against the respondent under R. 16(1) (b) which provides that agency can be terminated if the agent acts in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Corporation or to the interest of the policy holders. The learned counsel also referred to R. 17 of the Regulations, which provides for termination simpliciter, by giving one month’s notice in writing either by the LIC or by the agent. The learned counsel further submitted that, the finding of the learned Single Judge that only on a finding of the competent criminal court that an agent has committed fraud, his commission could be forfeited under R. 19(1) is untenable. We also heard Sri.A.Antony, learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner.

4. Th