Dismissed

G. Satyanarayana v. Life Insurance Corporation of India

Telangana HC31 Jul 2023WP/35261/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the termination of an insurance agency and forfeiture of commissions, the High Court of Telangana held that the statutory appeal remedy under the LIC Regulations was available and suitable. The court found no exceptional circumstances warranting interference, dismissing the petition without costs.

What did the court decide?

Dismissing the writ petition without costs and granting liberty to pursue the appeal remedy.

G. Satyanarayana Vs Life Insurance Corporation of… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

l32s2l

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

IUONDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 35261 OF 2022

¶8

Between:

¶9

G. Satyanarayana, S/o Venkateswarlu, Aged 63^years, Occ.^{LIC Agent,} 4gency Code No 03283653 (under Termination) Life lnsurance Corporation^{of lndia, Branch} Office, Khammam, Khammam district, R/O Flat^{No.8/303,Prasad Heights,} Sahakaranagar, Khammam,507002 Khammam district.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

ANO

¶12

1 Life lnsurance Corporation of lndia, Central Office Yogakshema^{Jeevan Bima} Marg Nariman Point Mumbai⁴⁰⁰⁰²¹ , Rep.by^its Chairman.

¶13

2 Life lnsurance Corporation of lndia, Corporate Office 5th^{Floor,West Wing,} . Yogakshema, Jeevan Bhima Marg, Nariman^{Point, Mumbai - 400021,P.B No} 19953, Near Air lndia Building, Rep.by its Managing Director.

¶14

3 Life lnsurance Corporation of lndia, Zonal Office,^{ll Floor, SecretariatRoad,} Saifabad, Hyderabad. 500 029, Rep.by^{Zonal Manager,}

¶15

4 The Senior Divisional Manager/ Disciplinary Authority,^{Life lnsurance} Corporation of lndia, Divisional office, Jeevan^{Prakash, Balasamudram,} Hanamkonda, Warangal .506 001 ,

¶16

5 The Chief Manager, Life lnsurance Corporation^{of tndia, Main branch, NST} Road, Khammam, Khammam district.507002

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of^{lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith, the High Court maybe} pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction^{especiallyone in the} nature of a writ of Mandamus, declaring^{the actionof the 4th respondentherein} in the capacity of Disciplinary^{Authority, in passingorder daled 15.7 -2022} imposing the penalty of Termination of^{AgencyCodeNumber 03283653and} payment of eligible renewal commissions^{in terms of Regulation 16(b),19 of Life}

¶19

lnsurance Corporation of lndia (Agents) Regulations,2017 upon him, without any fault on his part, in retaliation for reporting to the Head Office on 24.11.2021 lhat No employee at Khammam 653 branch in their seats at Office hours in their seats, so many customers are waiting for service and to take necessary action in the manner and issuing Show Cause Notice dated 31 .5.2022 with a predetermined mind to terminate my LIC Agency with forfeiture of renewal commission under Regulation 16(b) of LIC of lndia (Agents) Regulations,20l 7, as illegal and arbitrary mind and to set aside and for a consequential direction to the respondents to restore my LIC Agency Code Number 03283653 and pay the arrears of renewal/commission payable to me and to go on paying renewal commission, as long as the Policies made by me are in subsistence along with other eligible Monetary benefits and also award damages of Rs.50,00,000/-.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order dated 15.07.2021 issued by the 4th respondent imposing the penalty of Termination of Agency Code Number 03283653 and payment of eligible reneweal commissions" in terms of Regulation 16(bh), 19 of the Life lnsurance Corporation of lndia ( Agents) Regulations 2017 upon petitioner.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI NARASIMHA RAO ANANTHULA

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents: SINGAM SRINIVASA RAO

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶26

W.P-No.3526a of 2022

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the^{petitioner and} the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the

¶29

respond en ts.

¶30

2. PERUSED THE RECORD.

¶31

3. The prayer as sought for by the petitioner in the present writ petition read.s as trnder:

¶32

"to issue an appropriate vvrit, order or direction especially one in tl-re nature of Writ oF Mandamus, decla:-ing the t:ction of the^.1'r' resporrdent herein in the capacity of Disciplinary Authority, in^passing order dated 15.07.2022 imposing the penalty of "Termination of Agency Code Number 03283653 and payment of eligible renewal commissions" in terms Regulation I b(b), 19 of Life insurance Corporation of India(Agents) Regulations, 2017 upon the^petitioner, without any fault on his part, in retaliation For reportinq to tho l-lead Office on ?-4.11.2021 that^"No employee art i(harnnlarn 653 branch in their seats at Office hours in the ir seats, so nrany customers are waiting for service and to tal<e necessary action in

¶33

tla^ , iani'iei-' arrci issuing Show CaLSe trl:t ce dated .l r .01 ,.:0.r2 with a pre-determined n ind t,) ..errninate his L I Aqency lvith forfeiture of renr:wal r:r: mntission uncle R.egulation 16(b) of LIC of Inclir (Agents) r\cLlu itior-rS, 2017, as iiiegat and artritra-r, irird and to sie e,siCe and for a consequential dii-e:ctir>n to the respc rcenis to restcre the pctition:r,s t l(.1 Agency Cod e N urnber 0328365 _l and pay the ar.rears of i-en ev liicrlmrnisston payable io the petil,ion:r ;lnd to go or l)aying^renewaI commission, as lc n,] E s the TUIILI( i rrrade b;r the petitioner- arc in s ul;si:;tence drulrq with other eliqibre monctary benefits anrJ also awarc damages of Rs.50,00,000/- pass su(ll- otirer or fu rth e orders as are deemed fit and ltropr:-

¶34

ItS urther prayed that this Flon.ltlr (-c,L r-.. may be p lea sc 1 to suspend lirr: or-der- dalerl 1; O /,2022 im Dos l(r the ncnalty of "Terr-nin:liOn of nCC rc,r, COdc Nurnb r 0.3283653 and oa'y.ment of :iiqib e ierrewai comm ;sions" in terms of Regulation 6(b), 9 of Life Insura rce Corporation of India(Agenls) Fl.oc lla:ions, 2A7,7 tpon the petitioner, pendrnq Jispr:;;rl of the Writ p tition and pass such other or frrrthetr crdetrs as are de nred fit and proper."

¶35

The :ounter affidavit filed by the re!;pondents tn the preser t Writ petition, in particular, pala gr;iph Nos. 3,5,6 anc I read as under:

¶36

¶37

At the outset it is submitted that, against the said order, the petitioner has got an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal under the Life Insurance Corporation of India(Agents) Regulations, 2017 (herein after referred to as "Regulations"). The petitioner without taking recourse to the said alternative remedy has approached this Hon'ble Court straight away. It is settled law that the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is not meant to short circuit or circumvent the alternative remedies available under an enactment. In this regard the petitioner relies on the recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 202L SCC online SC 681. On this short ground alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶38

In view ol- the above, the Corporation called for the expla nation of the petitioner vide letter dated 26.1t.202t for which the petitioner filed his reply on 02.t2.2021. After going through the explanation of the petitioner, the disciplinary authority has decided to initiate disciplinary proceedinqs. The agency of the petitioner was suspended on 16.12.2021 during pendency of . the disciplinary proceedings. Enquiry officer ancl presenting officer were appointed in accordance with Schedule V of the LIC oF India (Agents) Regulations, 2017 (herein after referred ro as Regulations). Enquiry proceedings were conducted from 03.03.2022 to 06.O5.2022. The petitioner participated in the enquiry proceedings throughout and defended his case. Minutes of the day to day proceedings were handed over to the petitioner then and there itself .

¶39

tt is subrnitted that after enquiry, the disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice clatecl 31.O5.2022 proposing to terminate the agency with forfeiture of renewal commission in accordance with the

¶40

Regu ations. Along with the rrotir:r: th,e enqu -!' reports were also sent t(r th,e petiti lner, The petitioner filed his reJrt)r orr o6.o( .2022, After going through the r-r:ply and rasing on the finding of the enq uiry office ', the authority passed a detailec f ina I order on 15.07.2022 terminating lris a(rcncy in tr rrns of Regulation 16(b), 19 Lif,e Insur rnce Corporation of f ndia (Agents) Regu ations, 2017. However, his renewarl conl r i:;sion was ordered to be paicl an,J a ccot lingly pad on 31.08.2022 an,l

¶41

16.O9 ,2O22 vide voucher Nos, 192311 anrl 2L29 , for Rs.1O,461.O3 and 2,46,3t{.t.lt.J

¶42

resp( :tively. The order was pa ssed erfter

¶43

g ivi n, lair oppor-tunity to the petitioner anrl in ac, ordance rarith tlre regulations. l\clainst

¶44

the eid order, the petit!o!.!e!' has a!1 effica r:ious remedy of appeal to the Z,:rna I Mana ;errⁱⁿ terms of Regulations 2O;rnd,l mem, ,rial to the Chairman in ternts; of

¶45

Regu ation 24. The petitioner inste ar,l of appr'( rr:hing the appellate auth.r. ity f iie,j the resent writ petition on unten;rbl,= 9rour ds. Hence, the present writ petition is

¶46

iia b ie to be ciismissed,

¶47

It iS submitted that th€ pct trrtner UNSUC e;sl'ully epproeche'i the TS l-lu.nan ) Jnts Corn n sr;ion, the local police and al:;o r,t s,.rd I pre- lit Jirticn^{case bc,frlrc the} Distri(:t C.:rrt at Kham rarm. As the charges are prcve,l lrrr n J the et)artmental enquiry, the tenal ,T c f terrn ir ltro.l of agency was irnpos,:d o I th 3 petitic tc r. However, h s renewal ,tornrr i(,sio I !/as n t forfeited . "

¶48

The Arex Court in a judgrnent d,:tecl 0 j 09.2021 reported i 2O2L SCC Online SC BB4 in (.ivil Appeal

¶49

¶50

I I

¶51

No.5121 of 2O2L (arising out of SLp (c) No.13639 of 2O21 @ D.No.11555 of 2O2O) in Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and Others Vs. Commerciat Steel Lamited at

¶52

paragraph No.11 observed as under:

¶53

'11. The respondent had a statutory remedy under Section 107. tnstead of availing of the remedy, the respondent,nstituted a petition under Article 226. The existence of an alternate remedy is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. But a writ petition can be entertained in exceptional circurnstances whcre there is:

¶54

(i) a breach of fundamental rights; (ai) a violation of the principles of natural justice;

¶55

(iii) an excess o[ junsdiction; or

¶56

(iv) a challenge to the vires of the statute ot, delegated legrslation.

¶57

Taking into consideration the above referred facts

¶58

and circumstances of the case and the averments made by the learned Counsel for the respondents in the counter affidavit, in particular, at paragraph Nos. 3, S, 6 and B (referred to and extracted above), this Court is of the firnr <:pinion that the present case admittedty does not fall in any of the exceptional circumstances as

¶59

¶60

obsei-i l(i in the order oi the Ape:( Court ciateci 03.09. :C!21, reported irr 2O21 SC'C on lirrre SC 884 in

¶61

Ass isti nt Commissioner of State fax ,trrd Others Vs.

¶62

Comm rcial Steel Linrited, that warrar t !; interference by thi Court, the writ petition is disnti:;sed granting liberty t() the petitioner to pursue the renredy of appeal

¶63

..-l^he Life i.isijrairce Corporatir;n of i nciia (Agents) Reg u le [i,rns, 2O17 by preferring an apprrzrl to the Zonal Manag :r in terms of Regulations 2rl anrl ;r nremorial to the Ch tirman in terms of Regulatirtn 2tzl :o pursue the g rieva ,ce of the petitioner. However, l.trere shall be no order; s to costs.

¶64

iv s(.ellaneous petit,ons, rf any, pCndirtrl ,,ha I also stand

¶65

close(l

¶66

SD/- K. AMMAJI AS SI]TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// !: I SECTION OFFICER

¶67

To, 1. One CC lo^;F I NARASIMHA^{RAO ANANTHULI'' Ad'vrr':'rte[OPUC]} i. O;; aa ro^{;rrt StrueRuSRINIVASA RAO, Advr;catt' [(.PU3]} 3. Two CD C >pies. BSK GJP

L1?-

HIGH COURI

DATED:31107 2023

Q:
ai,l
$s,
,l -,
'. li i -.

¶72

ORDER

¶73

WP.No.35261 of 2022

¶74

DISMISSING^'I{E WRIT PETITION WITHOUT CC 1STS

¶75

5
\r;
r i-\ t
2)r,L

G. Satyanarayana v. Life Insurance Corporation of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Satyanarayana v. Life Insurance Corporation of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. S.R.Venkateswaramma Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Mahmood Hussaini Baghdadi @ Saadat Peer Baghdadi Vs The State of Telangana

T. Venkateshwar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Anjana Sravani Enterprises Vs Union of India

Kollipara Aravinda Babu, Vs The Union of India

Maskuri Narsimlu Vs The Union of India