Partly allowed

Binu Viswambharan v. the Senior Divisional Manager

Kerala HC12 Mar 2024WP(C)/4599/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A former LIC agent challenged his agency's termination and forfeiture of renewal commission after a disciplinary enquiry where complainants were not examined and later sought to withdraw complaints. The court declined to decide merits and set aside the revisional order on punishment, directing the LIC Chairman to reconsider afresh after hearing him.

What the court decided

AI extract

Binu Viswambharan Vs the Senior Divisional Manager — Insurance | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 12^TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 4599 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

BINU VISWAMBHARAN, AGED 46 YEARS S/O VISWAMBHARAN ACHARI, CRA-271,AMBALATHARA PUTHEN VEEDU, CHOOZHAMPARA. MUKKOLA P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-, PIN - 695043

¶8

S.K.BALACHANDRAN T.P.GEORGE N.D.DEEPA

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-, PIN - 695004

¶11

2 THE ZONAL MANAGER LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, LIC BUILDING, ANNA ROAD, CHENNAI-, PIN - 600002

¶12

3 THE CHAIRMAN, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, NARIMAN POINT SO, MUMBAI,, PIN - 400021

¶13

SRI.S.EASWARAN, SC,

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) NO. 4599 OF 2023

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

At the outset, I record that this Court deems it prudent not to indite the facts and the details of this case in detail because, my intent is to remit the matter to the competent Authority for reconsideration of the punishment imposed upon the petitioner.

¶19

Compendiously, the petitioner worked as an Agent/Advisor under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC); and it appears that, certain complaints were impelled against him by some customers on various grounds, including misappropriation and such other.

¶20

The petitioner says that he was charge sheeted and subjected to an enquiry, which was illegal and in complete violation of the principles of natural justice; and that therefore, that he cogently explained his conduct before the Disciplinary Authority, but which was not considered, thus leading to the punishment of the termination of his Agency and the forfeiture of his Renewal Commission. He says that he filed an appeal against this, which ended in Ext.P10, followed by a Revision before the Managing Director of the LIC, which has now culminated in Ext.P17 - both of which have simply accepted the enquiry report, without looking into any of the specific contentions he had projected before them. He thus prays that

¶21

¶22

WP(C) NO. 4599 OF 2023

¶23

Exts.P5, P8, P10 and P17 be quashed; consequentially directing the LIC to restore his Agency and to disburse to him the Renewal Commission, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶24

Sri.S.K.Balachandran – learned counsel for the petitioner, made very vehement arguments on various grounds, but primarily that the disciplinary enquiry is vitiated because, the complainants were never examined as witnesses. He also argued that the punishment imposed against his client was extremely disproportionate and was not permissible because, as per the 1982 Rules – which alone is applicable, for the forfeiture of Renewal Commission cannot be imposed as a punishment.

¶25

Sri.S.Easwaran – learned standing counsel for the LIC, however, refuted the afore arguments of Sri.S.K.Balachandran and even made available the file of the enquiry against the petitioner before this Court. He pointed out that, even though the complainants were not examined, there were tenable evidence found against the petitioner, to prove his guilt; and therefore, that the Authorities were justified in having imposed the punishment, particularly because they are more concerned about the goodwill of the institution and the blot it creates on its reputation on account of serious imputations. He thus prayed

¶26

WP(C) NO. 4599 OF 2023

¶27

¶28

that this writ petition be dismissed.

¶29

As I have already said above, I do not propose to go into the merits of the rival contentions at this stage because, am of the view that the punishment requires to be revisited by the competent Authority, particularly taking note of two specific aspects, namely: for the first, that the complainants were never examined at the stage of enquiry and that the files now reveal that they have issued letters subsequent to the afore proceedings, indicating their intent to withdraw the said complaints; and for the second, the argument of the petitioner, that his punishment should have been guided only by the 1982 Rules. These have not found reflection in any of the impugned orders; and they have some relevance because, Sri.S.K.Balanchandran asserts that if the said Rules are applied, then, even if the Agency is to be terminated, the Renewal Commission could not have been forfeited.

¶30

In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition to the limited extent of setting aside Ext.P17 qua the punishment imposed; with a consequential direction to the competent Authority, namely the third respondent, to reconsider this aspect, adverting to the afore submissions of the petitioner, after affording him an opportunity of being heard, particularly taking

¶31

¶32

WP(C) NO. 4599 OF 2023

¶33

note of the factum of letters having been issued by the complainants subsequent to the enquiry proceedings; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶34

Needless to say, if, through the afore exercise, the punishment is found to be necessary to be reduced or reconsidered, then all consequential benefits shall flow to the petitioner without having to obtain any further orders from this Court.

¶35

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

stu

¶38

WP(C) NO. 4599 OF 2023

¶39

¶40

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4599/2023

¶41

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶42

Exhibit P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 10-6-2013
Exhibit P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 18-8-2014
Exhibit P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DT.18-9-2014
Exhibit P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DT. 28-11- 2014
Exhibit P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 19/11/2018
Exhibit P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DT. 20-8-2019
Exhibit P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DT. 18-9-2019
Exhibit P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT. 30-12-2019
Exhibit P9	A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DT. 15-3-2020
Exhibit P10	A TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DT. 24- 8-2020
Exhibit P11	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION ON 7-6-2017
Exhibit P12	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 14-9-2017
Exhibit P13	TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION DT. 16-12- 2019 FURNISHED TO THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RTI ACT, ENCLOSING THE LETTERS SENT BY THE
	DE FACTO COMPLAINANTS TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P14	TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CR. NO. 982/14 IN MALAYANKEEZHU POLICE STATION

¶43

WP(C) NO. 4599 OF 2023

¶44

¶45

Exhibit P14	(a) TRUE COPY OF THE NO. 397/2015 OF STATION	FINAL REPORTS IN CRIME MALAYANKEEZHU POLICE
Exhibit P14	(b) TRUE COPY OF THE F 1454/2017 OF VILAPP	INAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. ILSALA POLICE STATION
Exhibit P15	A TRUE COPY OF THE CRL. M.C. NO. 601/2	JUDGMENT DT.7-4-2022 IN 019
Exhibit P16	A TRUE COPY OF THE	MEMORIAL DT.28-10-2022
Exhibit P17	A TRUE COPY OF THE	ORDER DATED 11/4/2023

Binu Viswambharan v. the Senior Divisional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Binu Viswambharan v. the Senior Divisional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devika Bipin, Vs the Bank Manager, Union Bank of India

A. Vijayalakshmi Krishna, Vs the State of Kerala

Sree Vidhyadhiraja Homoeopathic Medical College Vs Kesavendra Kumar IAS

Ajeesh .K Vs M/S. Muthoot Housing Finance Company Ltd.

Pradeep Kumar. K Vs Varadarajan S.

The Managing Director Vs Kerala State Commission for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes