Karnataka HC Gives Terminated LIC Agent 15 Days To Appeal Forfeited Commission, Orders ₹25,000 Monthly If Appeal Isn’t Decided In 6 Weeks

The petitioner, an LIC agent, had his agency terminated and renewal commission forfeited on allegations connected with introducing LIC customers to Vikram Investments.

After his initial termination and appeals were set aside in earlier proceedings for want of a proper enquiry, a fresh enquiry found certain charges not proved but found a breach of Regulation 16(1)(b) proved.

The disciplinary authority accepted that finding and again terminated the agency and forfeited the renewal commission.

The petitioner challenged that order under Articles 226 and 227 without first appealing under Regulation 20 of the LIC of India (Agents) Regulations, 2017. LIC objected that the statutory appeal had not been exhausted.

The LIC of India (Agents) Regulations, 2017 provide a statutory appeal under Regulation 20 against the impugned order; Regulation 23(2) requires disposal of an appeal within three months.

The existence of an alternative remedy does not absolutely bar a writ petition, but the High Court may decline to entertain it as a matter of discretion.

Under Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1, a writ petition may be entertained despite an alternative remedy in recognised exceptional circumstances, including enforcement of fundamental rights, breach of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or a challenge to statutory vires.

The Court found no exceptional circumstance warranting departure from the alternative-remedy rule.

The petitioner had not shown that any of the Whirlpool exceptions applied, and his earlier proceedings before the High Court did not, by themselves, justify deciding the present challenge on its merits.

The Court also rejected the claim that the appeal was ineffective, noting the prescribed time limit for its disposal.

It distinguished K.P. Narasimha Murthy, where the agent had pursued the statutory appeal before approaching the Court; here, the petitioner had not appealed and had admitted introducing LIC customers to Vikram Investments.

It directed the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal within six weeks, without raising a limitation objection on account of the time spent prosecuting the writ petition.

If the appeal was not decided within that period, LIC was directed to pay subsistence allowance of ₹25,000 per month until its disposal; all contentions were left open.