THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10/12/2025 PASSED IN W.P.NO.23625/2023 BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION & ETC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMinary HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

1. The appellants [LIC] have filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 10.12.2025 [the impugned order] passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.23625/2023 (GM-RES).

2. The respondent had filed the said writ petition, inter alia, to impugn an order dated 14.05.2019 terminating his agency. The respondent also impugned the proceedings dated 12.09.2023 conducted under Rule 23 of the LIC of India (Agents) Regulations, 2017 [LIC Regulations].

3. The respondent was an agent of LIC. However, his agency was terminated. Aggrieved by the same, he had preferred the writ petition. The learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition and set aside the proceedings dated 12.09.2023, which confirmed the 'penalty of termination of agency with forfeiture of renewal commission' as imposed on the respondent.

4. The respondent (writ petitioner) enrolled himself as an agent of the Life Insurance Corporation of India in the year 1992. The appellants imposed a penalty on the respondent, leading to his termination as an LIC agent following allegations made in an FIR [Crime No. 73/2018] registered at Banashankari Police Station, Bengaluru, on 03.03.2018. LIC states that it became aware of these allegations through newspapers and TV channels, which reported that three LIC agents, including the respondent, had been named in an FIR for offences punishable under Sections 34, 403, 406, and 420 of the IPC. The FIR was lodged by Sri P.R. Balaji, who alleged that the respondent and Sri Raghavendra Srinath, proprietor of Vikram Investment Co., had induced him to invest in M/s Vikram Investments and to part with `11.20 crores. They also allegedly persuaded his brother, Sri Bhaskar, to part with `54.00 crores and invest these amounts in various schemes of Vikram Investments, promising high returns. He further claimed that Vikram Investments had failed to return `11.74 crores (comprising the `11.20 crores invested by the complainant and `54.00 crores invested by his brother Bhaskar) and thus had cheated them. It is also alleged that, similarly, other named LIC agents had induced 800 (eight hundred) persons to invest in Vikram Investments.

5. On becoming aware of the news reports, appellant No.3 (Senior Divisional Manager of LIC) sent a letter dated 12.03.2018, directing the respondent not to solicit or procure new life insurance business. He also called upon the respondent to provide an explanation. Thereafter, on 18.03.2019, a show cause notice was issued, stating, among other things, that sufficient opportunity had been given by the Inquiry Officer to submit an explanation. However, the respondent's explanation to the Inquiry Officer was found unsatisfactory. It was alleged that the respondent had tarnished LIC's image and acted in a manner prejudicial to its interests. It is further alleged that the respondent had violated Rule 8(3) read with Regulation 19(2) of the LIC (Agents) Regulations. The respondent was called upon to show cause as to why his agency should not be terminated, with forfeiture of renewal commissions, for the aforementioned misconduct and for acting in a manner detrimental to LIC's interests.

6. The respondent claims that no inquiry was conducted as claimed. He states that although a notice of personal hearing was issued on 14.09.2018. But the same was served on the respondent on 25.09.2018. He had submitted a representation and sought time for a personal appearance; thereafter, his personal hearing was scheduled for 06.10.2018. However, he alleges th