SRI K C NAGARAJ vs THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA

- 1 -
WP No. 30220 of 2024


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.VIVEKANANDA

WRIT PETITION NO. 30220 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI. K.C. NAGARAJ
S/O LATE CHIKKEGOWDA
AGED 61 YEARS
ND
NO.9/53, 2 FLOOR, 'B' BLOCK
ND
BDA (MIG) FLAT, 2 STAGE
DOMLUR, BENGALURU-560 071

…PETITIONER







(BY SRI: B V SHANKAR NARAYAN RAO, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SMT: RENUKA C M, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI: MADHUSUDHAN J, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE LIFE INSURANCE
CORPORATION OF INDIA
REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN
"YOGAKSHEMA"
JEEVAN BHIMA MARG
CENTRAL OFFICE, P.B. NO.19953
MUMBAI-400 021

2. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
DIVISIONAL OFFICE I
J.C.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 002

3. SRI. GANESH T.R
ENQUIRY OFFICER
SR NO 577208, MANAGER (F AND A)
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA






Digitally signed by
PAVITHRA B
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
WP No. 30220 of 2024


DIVISIONAL OFFICE I, J.C.ROAD
BENGALURU-560 002
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: RAJESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;
NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE
ORDER DATED 02.12.2024)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FINAL ORDER DATED 30.08.2024 (ANENXURE-P)
REF SALES/BANGALORE DO-1 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.2, WHILE DECLARING THE SAME TO BE ARBITRARY,
ILLEGAL, INOPERATIVE AND UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND
DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO REINSTATE THE
PETITIONER AS AGENT ALONG WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL
BENEFITS INCLUDING THE PAYMENT OF RENEWAL
COMMISSION AMOUNTING TO APPROXIMATELY RS.60,00,000/-
(RUPEES SIXTY LAKHS ONLY) IN RESPECT OF THE INSURANCE
POLICIES ISSUED THROUGH THE PETITIONER PRIOR TO THE
TERMINATION DATE I.E., 01.03.2018.
THIS WRIT PETITION, HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR
ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY,
T.P.VIVEKANANDA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.VIVEKANANDA

CAV ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the
order dated 30.08.2024 passed by respondent No.2 vide
Annexure-P.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was
appointed as an agent in Life Insurance Corporation of India.
While he was working as an agent in the said Corporation, on
the allegation of having induced the policy holders of the

- 3 -
WP No. 30220 of 2024


Corporation to invest in M/s. Vikram Investments Company, the
agency of the petitioner was terminated by respondent No.2
vide order dated 14.05.2019, which was preceded by the Show
Cause Notice dated 18.03.2019 calling upon the petitioner to
show cause as to why his agency should not be terminated and
renewal commission shall not be forfeited due to the acts of the
petitioner which were detrimental to the interest of the
Corporation.
3. In response to the same, the petitioner has
submitted his reply on 03.04.2019. It is thereafter, the order
of termination dated 14.05.2019 was passed. Aggrieved by the
said order, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal under
Regulation 20 of the of the LIC of India (Agents) Regulations
2017 (for short 'the Regulations 2017') to the Zonal Manager,
who is the Appellant Authority. The said appeal came to be
disposed of on 21.03.2020, confirming the order of respondent
No.2. Challenging the said orders, the petitioner preferred a
Memorial under Section 24 of the Regulations to the Chairman
of LIC. The same resulted in an order of rejection dated
11.01.2021. All the aforesaid orders were challenged by the
petitioner in Writ Petition No.13728 of 2021 on the ground that
the order of termination of the agency and forfeiture of

- 4 -
WP No. 30220 of 2024


accumulated commission was not preceded by an regular
enquiry. Accepting the said contention, the writ petition came
to be disposed of on 31.07.2023 by remitting the matter to the
respondents to cause a regular enquiry.
4. Pursuant thereto, the respondents had initiated
enquiry upon issuance of notice dated 29.09.2023. After
completion of the enquiry, final order dated 30.10.2023 was
passed by respondent No.2. The said order was the subject
matter of Writ Petition No.27093 of 2023. The contention of
the petitioner in the said writ petition was that the directions of
this Court in Writ Petition No.13728 of 2021 was not adhered to
and sufficient opportunity was not provided to the petitioner to
respond to the enquiry Officers' report. The petitioner has also
relied upon the order passed in the case of Sri Sutram Suresh
Vs The Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance
1
Corporation of India and Others . On the ground of non
adherence of the direction issued in the earlier writ petition in
the matter of conducting of departmental enquiry, the Writ
Petition No.27093 of 2023 was allowed, setting aside the order
dated 30.10.2023 and remanding the matter to the Senior

1
WP No.29459/2019 DD 02.03.2023

- 5 -
WP No. 30220 of 2024


Divisional Manager to conduct a fresh enquiry in terms of the
order dated 31.07.2023 by providing sufficient and reasonable
opportunity to the petitioner and proceed further. The other
consequential directions have also been issued.
5. The writ petition records discloses that the enquiry
was conducted upon securing the written submissions from the
petitioner and the enquiry Officer submitted his report on
27.08.2024 concluding that the charges as regards violation of
Regulation 15(c), 15(d), 8(3), 6(1)(c), (h) and (i) are not
proved and the charges of violation of Regulation 16(1)(b) is
proved. The enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner
calling upon him to submit his response as to why the report of
the enquiry shall not be accepted. The petitioner has submitted
his reply on 29.08.2024 and respondent No.3 has passed the
order on 30.08.2024 accepting the report of the enquiry Officer
and imposed the penalty of termination of agency with
forfeiture of entire Renewal Commission in respect of all the
policies effected under the agency of the petitioner.
6. The writ petition is opposed by the respondents by
filing statement of objections.

- 6 -
WP No. 30220 of 2024


7. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on
the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Sri
2
K P Narasimha Murthy Vs Zonal Manager and Others , so
also, the judgment passed in the Division Bench of this Court in
3
Zonal Manager and Others Vs Sri K P Narasimha Murthy
and contends that in identical circumstances in respect of
another agent of LIC, who is also similarly situated to that of
the petitioner, this Court has set aside the punishment order
and directed release of the commission, which order has been
confirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench and therefore, the
matter is squarely covered by the aforesaid decisions. Hence,
he prays for allowing the petition.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1
and 2 opposing the petition raises a preliminary objection as
regards the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground
that against the order terminating the agency and forfeiture of
renewal of commission under Regulation 16, an appeal is
provided under Regulation 20 of the Regulations, 2017.
Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable.

2

WP No.23625/2023 DD 10.12.2025
3
WA No.245/2026 DD 17.03.2026

- 7 -
WP No. 30220 of 2024


9. In addition, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1
and 2 submits that the judgments relied upon by the petitioner
are not applicable to the facts of the present case, inasmuch
as, in the aforesaid case, the petitioner - K P Narasimha Murthy
has filed the statutory appeal under Regulation 20 of the
Regulations, 2017 before the Zonal Manager and after
exhausting the appeal remedy, he had approached this Court,
however, in the present case, without availing the statutory
remedy of appeal, the petitioner has filed the instant writ
petition and therefore, the facts of the present case and the
aforesaid cases are altogether different. It is also his
submission that when the initial notice was issued to the
petitioner on 12.03.2018, on 22.05.2018 and 24.09.2018, the
petitioner has submitted his reply admitting the fact that he has
introduced the customers of LIC to M/s Vikram Investments.
10. Paragraph 4 of the reply dated 22.05.2018, reads
as follows:
"That whosoever approached me for investment
options apart from LIC, mutual funds, banks, NSC and
other such investments, I have introduced such
customers of mine to Vikram Investments"

- 8 -
WP No. 30220 of 2024


11. Relying upon the aforesaid admission, learned
counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner had
actively involved in introducing the customers of LIC to Vikram
Investments and it is in the said circumstances, his name finds
a place in the FIR filed by the police and the petitioner had
challenged the said FIR in Criminal Petition No.12566 or 2022
and same has been stayed by the co-ordinate Bench of this
Court.
12. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the aforesaid criminal petition has been
disposed of in view of filing of charge sheet and with permission
to seek discharge in the proceedings. It is his further
submission that by taking note of the series of orders passed
by this Court from the year 2023, the petitioner may not be
relegated to filing of the appeal under Regulation 20 of the
Regulations, 2017 and the writ petition be considered on
merits.
13. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the respondents on the maintainability of the writ petition,
the only point that arises for consideration is as to - "Whether
the petitioner be relegated to the appeal remedy under

- 9 -
WP No. 30220 of 2024


Regulation 20 of the Regulations, 2017 or the writ petition is to
be considered on its merits?"
14. The remedy of appeal under Regulation 20 is the
remedy provided under the statute i.e., LIC of India (Agents)
Regulations 2017. As noticed supra, when the agency of the
petitioner was terminated at the first instance in the year 2019,
the petitioner has availed the remedy of appeal and this Court
has set aside the order of termination, so also, the order
passed by the Appellate Authority on the ground that the
termination of agency was not preceded by an enquiry
contemplated under the Regulations.
15. Though it is the submission of learned counsel for
the petitioner that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious,
however, this Court is unable to accept the said submission,
inasmuch as, the petitioner having filed the present writ
petition in the year 2024, the writ petition is still pending for
adjudication. If the petitioner were to avail the statutory
remedy of appeal in the year 2024 itself, the appeal would have
been disposed of by this time. When the petitioner could wait
for two long years before this Court in prosecuting the present
petition, the submission of the learned senior counsel that the

- 10 -
WP No. 30220 of 2024


remedy of appeal under Regulation is not an efficacious
remedy, cannot be accepted.
16. It is no doubt true that availability of alternative
remedy of appeal is not a bar for entertaining the writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, it is the
discretion of the Court to entertain the writ petition de hors the
availability of alternative remedy.
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
WhirlPool Corporation Vs Registrar of Trade Marks,
4
Mumbai and Others , has laid down under what
circumstances the Writ Court would be justified in entertaining
the writ petition despite existence of alternative remedy. The
relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted below:
"6. x x x x
(1) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of
any of the fundamental rights;
(ii) where there is violation of principles of
natural justice;
(iii) where the order or the proceedings are
wholly without jurisdiction; or
(iv) where the vires of an Act is challenged."


4
(1998) 8 SCC 1

- 11 -
WP No. 30220 of 2024


18. The petitioner has not established the existence of
extraordinary circumstances as extracted above to dispense
with the availment of alternative remedy under Regulation 20
of the Regulations, 2017. Only on the ground that the
petitioner had approached this Court couple of occasions
earlier, challenging the various orders passed by respondent
Nos.1 and 2 itself would not be a ground to entertain this writ
petition and consider the matter on merits.
19. One other reason as to why the contention of the
petitioner that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious is to be
rejected is that, under Regulation 23(2) of the Regulations,
2017, the Appellate Authority is bound to dispose of the appeal
within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the
appeal. When there is a time limit stipulated in the Regulations
for disposal of the appeal under Regulation 20 of the
Regulations, 2017, any submission contrary to the Regulations
23 of the Regulations, 2017 deserves to be rejected.
20. It is noticed that in the case of Sri K P Narasimha
Murthy (supra) , the orders which were challenged are the
orders of Competent Authority, so also, the Appellate Authority
and the said agent has availed the remedy of appeal and

- 12 -
WP No. 30220 of 2024


thereafter, approached this Court. In the said case, the relief
was granted by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court which has
been confirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench noticing that
there was nothing to show the role of the said agent in the
alleged scam and the said agent has not induced any person to
invest money with an intention to cheat any customer.
21. In the present case, as submitted by the learned
counsel for the respondents, the petitioner herein has admitted
in his reply to the notice that he has introduced his customers
to M/s Vikram Investments. Since the facts and circumstances
of the case relied upon by the petitioner and the present case
are slightly different and the fact that the petitioner has not
availed the remedy of statutory appeal under Regulation 20 of
the Regulations, 2017, this Court find it appropriate not to
consider this writ petition on merits and finds it appropriate to
relegate the petitioner to file a statutory appeal under
Regulation 20 of the Regulations, 2017.
22. In view of the reasons explained above, this Court
find no extraordinary circumstances to entertain the writ
petition challenging the impugned orders de hors the existence

- 13 -
WP No. 30220 of 2024


of appeal remedy under Regulation 20 of the Regulations,
2017.
23. In the result, the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is disposed of.
(ii) However, the petitioner is at liberty to avail the
remedy of appeal under Regulation 20 of the Regulations, 2017
within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified
copy of the order.
(iii) If such an appeal is filed, the same shall be
considered by the Zonal Manager/Appellate Authority and
dispose of the same within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of
the appeal.
(iv) Though the outer limit of 3 months is available for
disposal of the appeal, in the peculiar facts and circumstances
of the present case, namely, the petitioner is before this Court
since 2021, the Appellate Authority shall make endeavour to
dispose of the appeal within 6 weeks from the date of
submission of the appeal.
(v) It is noticed that the impugned order is dated
30.08.2024 and the petitioner has approached this Court on
28.10.2024. Therefore, the time spent by the appellant in
prosecuting the present writ petition be excluded and the

- 14 -
WP No. 30220 of 2024


appeal be considered on merits without raising any objection
regarding the limitation.
(vi) If for any reason, the appeal that would be filed by
the petitioner is not disposed of within a period of 6 weeks from
the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, respondent
Nos.1 and 2 shall pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month as
subsistence allowance till the disposal of the appeal before the
Appellate Authority.
(viii) All contentions of the parties are kept open. Any
observations made in this order is only for consideration of this
writ petition and the same would not come in the way of the
Appellate Authority to consider the appeal on its own merits.


Sd/-
(T.P.VIVEKANANDA)
JUDGE


BGN