JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 3 ^rd the Day of March, 2025)

Per: Justice Anand Pathak

1. The present appeal under Section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is preferred by the appellants/respondents being crestfallen by the order dated 06-05-2024 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.1037 of 2005 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner/respondent (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioner”) has been allowed.

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner was appointed as an Agent by the Life Insurance Corporation of India for District Morena having an Agent Code No.355-356 and due to alleged commission of fraud by the petitioner, his agency was terminated vide order dated 16-04-1996 and in pursuance thereof, the payment of commission which was received by the petitioner was forfeited.

3. The said order of termination was challenged by the petitioner in a departmental appeal but since the appeal was not decided, therefore, he preferred a Writ Petition No.789 of 1999 and during the pendency of the said writ petition, departmental appeal got decided and therefore, by way of amendment, the order of the Appellate Authority was also challenged in the said writ petition. The said writ petition came to be heard finally by this Court but got dismissed vide order dated 05-05-2003.

4. Against the said order, petitioner preferred LPA No.88 of 2003, which was decided by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 24-03-2004 whereby the appellants were directed to hold an enquiry after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner regarding fraud and conclude the enquiry within a period of six months thereafter. It was further directed that in the event, if the Competent Authority finds that the act of the petitioner was bonafide and no fraud was committed by him, then suitable order was directed to be passed for payment of renewal of commission under Regulation 19 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “the Regulation, 1972”)

5. In pursuance of the directions given by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid LPA, an enquiry was conducted and on 19- 10-2004, the enquiry report was submitted holding that the petitioner was found to have committed fraud, as he was the sole beneficiary of the amount of commission and an opinion was given that from the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the petitioner had manipulated the commission advices in order to extract more commission.

6. On the basis of the aforesaid enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority having concurred with the findings, issued a show-cause notice dated 18-11-2004 to the petitioner showing cause that since he has acted in a manner prejudicial and detrimental to the interest the Corporation thereby had violated the provisions of Rules 8(2)(a) and 2(b) read with Regulations 16(1)(a), 16(1) (b) and 16(1)(d) of the Rules, 1972, why the earlier order/s withholding of renewal commission be not revived and all other benefits, if any, associated with the aforesaid agency and payable to the Agent/petitioner be recalled/forfeited.

7. Petitioner submitted his reply on 03-12-2004 and the same being found to be improper was not accepted; hence, earlier order dated 16-04-1996 was revived and the renewal commission and all other benefits associated with the petitioner stood forfeited. Petitioner challenged the said order by preferring writ petition before learned Writ Court.

8. After hearing the rival submissions, learned Writ Court allowed the petition preferred by the petitioner and quashed the order dated 16- 12-2004 with a further direction to the appellants/LIC to give commission which accrued to the petitioner and he was declared to be entitled for commission accrued in future. Therefore, this appeal is being preferred by the appellants/LIC.

9. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that learned Writ