Veerendr Singh Siradhana, J.

1. In exercise of powers vested in the Senior Divisional Manager (Disciplinary Authority) by virtue of Rules 16(1)(a) & (b) and Rule 19(1) read with Rule 10(6) of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Rules, 1972 (for short, 'the Rules of 1972'), the agency of the petitioner was terminated with "forfeiture of renewal commission" vide order dated 16th January, 2007. An appeal instituted was declined by the Zonal Manager (Appellate Authority) so also a memorial submitted under Rule 24 of the Rules of 1972, was adjudicated upon vide order dated 16th June, 2008, confirming the order of the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority; of which the petitioner is aggrieved of, and therefore, has instituted the present writ application, praying for the following reliefs:

"(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned orders dated 16.1.2007 (Annexure-9), 24.9.2007 (Annexure-14) and 16.6.2008 (Annexure-16) passed by the respondents may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) by further appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may be directed to restore the agency of the petitioner with all consequential benefits.

(iii) by further appropriate writ, order or direction the Regulation 16 (3) of the LIC of India (Agents) Regulations, 1972 may be declared to be arbitrary and be quashed and set aside.

(iv) by further appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may be directed to release the annual renewal commission which is due and payable to the petitioner with all consequential benefits along with interest at bank rate.

(v) any other beneficial order or direction which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner."

2. Briefly stated, the skeletal material facts are that the petitioner was issued Licence No. 1366743, to act as an Insurance Agent to procure insurance business of life insured. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that his licence was renewed from time to time and he collected handsome business for the respondent-Corporation during the financial years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 and upto October, 2006.

3. However, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice on 3rd October, 2006, with reference to proposal No. 2431 dated 10th October, 2003, on the life of late Shri Manbhan Singh Gurjar, who was introduced by the petitioner agent. The proposal introduced resulted into a death claim within one year from the date of commencement. On an investigation, the claim was repudiated on the ground that the life assured (deceased) withheld material information as to his age at the time of insurance. The petitioner was called upon to file his response within 15 days. Having considered the response submitted by the petitioner on 4th November, 2006, the agency of the petitioner was terminated with forfeiture of renewal commission" vide o impugned order dated 16th January, 2007.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ajay Gupta, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application, vehemently argued that the petitioner, who was an agent for the Corporation, took all the necessary precautions while furnishing the required information of the life insured, including the age. According to the learned counsel, age of the life insured in the Rashan Card, as indicated, was 46 years and by his physical appearance as well, his age was assessed by him as about 45 years. However, he took the life assured to the Medical Officer on the panel of the Corporation; who issued a Medical Certificate, indicating the age of the life assured. Thus, there was no element of any 'fraud' played by the petitioner, as he was charged vide a show cause notice dated 3rd October, 2006. Hence, the finding of guilt arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority of 'misconduct' and 'fraud' is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the materials available on record.

5. Referring to Annexure-5, learned couns