Violation of the principles of natural justice.

P. R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.

This writ appeal is against the order in W.P. No. 4622 of 1976. The Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Madurai, the Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Madras and the Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay have filed the writ appeal. The respondent by name R. Sivasathyamurthi, residing at Vikramasingapuram, Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District was the petitioner in W.P. No. 4622 of 1976. He prayed for a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the first appellant in the order dated 28th July, 1975, which was confirmed by the second and third appellants on 5th March, 1975 and 4th October, 1976, respectively and for quashing the same.

2. The short facts are as follows. The respondent herein was the Insurance agent in the year 1976. In 1974, he procured two proposals for insurance, each for a sum of Rs. 25, 000, in respect of two individuals, M. Gopalakrishna and M. Subramanian. The respondent has stated that the lives assured were medically examined by Dr. Sankaranarayanan on 23rd March, 1974. On 9th April, 1974, one Mahadeva Iyer, father of the said assured wrote a letter to the Life Insurance Corporation of India that the respondent secured the proposals on the basis of misrepresentation and fraud. According to the said Mahadeva Iyer there was absolutely no medical examination of the insured who were then students and no medical certificates were also obtained on the date stated by the respondent. On receipt of this letter on 10th May, 1974, the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Tenkasi (Madurai) called for explanation for the respondent. To this letter, the respondent did not reply. Then to the reminder on 24th May, 1974, the respondent replied on 28th May, 1974, denying the allegations made in those letters. It is pertinent to note here that the service conditions of the respondent herein are governed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, 1972. Regulation 16 therein deals with termination of agency for certain lapses. It is in respect of lapses contained in Regulation 16(b) and (d), action was taken against the respondent herein after complying with the proviso to Regulation 16. Since their Life Insurance Corporation of India was not satisfied with the explanation of the respondent, it issued a show cause notice on 17th December, 1974, to which the respondent replied denying the charge. Even though the respondent did not ask for personal hearing in his reply, dated 29th December, 1974, he has requested them to make complete enquiry regarding the allegations levelled against him. The first appellant after calling for particulars from the Medical Officer, who is alleged to have examined the insured and from the College authorities, passed orders on 28th July, 1975, terminating the agency of the respondent. The appeal preferred by the respondent to the second appellant was rejected on 5th March, 1976, and a further memorial to the Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation, the third appellant herein was also rejected by him on 4th October, 1976. In these circumstances the respondent filed the writ petition as aforesaid challenging the legality of the order of termination passed on 28th July, 1975.

3. The learned single Judge of this Court after elaborately discussing the facts of the case observed that the Corporation seemed to have taken ex parte statements from the two proposes and Mahadeva Iyer and relied on the same without giving an opportunity to the respondent to disprove the allegations made against him, that the regulation required that the agent shall be given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the termination, that would mean that the allegations against him should be directly put to him with the evidence in support of the same and he should be given enough opportunity to contradict such evidence, and that as the principles of natural justice have not been followed in this case he con