JUDGMENT :

Heard.

2. This appeal arises out of the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 17.01.2008 in the matter of challenge to the termination of agency of the respondent agent by the appellant Life Insurance Corporation of India.

3. When the petitioner was working as an agent duly appointed by the Life Insurance Corporation, a show cause notice (Annexure1) was issued to him on 9.12.2004 with the allegations that on an inquiry it was revealed that the respondent agent submitted details with regard to proposal on the life of one Shri Kalayaneng Patel who eventually died on 01.06.2000. During an investigation, as alleged, it was revealed that the deceased Mr. Patel was suffering from Bronchitis before the date of proposal and was being treated by various doctors. However that fact was not disclosed by the respondent agent. It was further alleged that the age of the insured deceased was 65 years whereas the respondent agent had shown the age of insured as 55 years in the form signed by him. Thus, it was alleged that the respondent did not disclose the material facts about the health and the age of the insured, thereby, defrauding the Corporation. Further allegation was that the respondent agent failed to discharge the functions as an agent and acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Corporation.

4. Upon receipt of the show cause notice, the respondent submitted a detailed reply in which it was stated that alongwith the proposal, copy of ration card as an evidence of age, affidavit signed by notary public and medical test report of doctor appointed by the Corporation were submitted and the same were confirmed by the Development Officer and Medical Officer of the Corporation. These documents were sufficient for submitting proposal for insurance.

5. Vide order dated 08.01.2005, the disciplinary authority imposed penalty of termination from agency holding that the charges against the respondent agent were conclusively proved and thus he was not a fit person to be retained as an agent on the books of Corporation. The said order was challenged by way of appeal which was dismissed.

6. Aggrieved by the said order, a writ petition was preferred by the respondent agent which eventually came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order impugned in this appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that due diligence is required to be observed in an extremely important and crucial matter regarding acceptance of proposal of the insurance of a person. It is submitted that it is duty of the agent to make detailed inquiry and collect credible information with regard to entitlement of the person who applies for insurance. In the present case, the respondent was quite negligent and he did not make proper inquiry with regard to age and upon an inquiry it was found that the age of the insured was found to be different than the one disclosed in the proposal. Further, he was also found to be suffering from Bronchitis. This fact has been revealed upon inquiry and thus, the respondent agent acted negligently by not disclosing that fact. The view taken by disciplinary authority and the appellate authority that respondent agent was not fit to be retained as an agent does not warrant interference. The findings are based on admissible evidence and do not call for any interference.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent agent would argue that learned Single Judge has considered in extenso the pleadings of the parties and found that the orders of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority suffer from total non application of mind and the same were not even speaking orders as no reasons were assigned. The learned Single Judge found that respondent agent had taken all reasonable care and merely because the information submitted by the insured were found to be incorrect, that did not mean that the agent failed to discharge his duties as per Rules. Once the agent had taken all reasonable care and if subsequent