ORDER Rajendra Menon, J. Petitioner who is working as an agent with Life Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) has called in question, tenability of the order, Annexure P/6 dated 16-4-1996, by which under regulations 16 and 19 of the Agents Regulations, 1972, his agency has been terminated. Appeal filed by the petitioner has also been rejected. It is the case of the petitioner that he had been working as an agent under the licence granted to him under the statutory regulations with effect from 1988-89. He has secured good business and was member of the Divisional Club. It is contended that a show cause notice dated 10-12-1991. Annexure P/2 was issued to him pointing out some irregularities. Along with the said show cause notice, certain imputations as contained in Annexure P/3 were issued to him. Petitioner submitted a detailed explanation to the same vide Annexure P/3. However, it is the grievance of the petitioner that without giving due opportunity of hearing, without conducting enquiry into the matter, without recording any evidence and without informing him about the report received in some enquiry conducted by one Shri G.S. Agarwal, without examining the witnesses in the presence of the petitioner, agency has been terminated. Appeal, Annexure P/7 filed by him was not considered and during pendency of the petition vide Annexure R/1, the same has been rejected. Shri N.K. Mody, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that action taken against the petitioner is totally unsustainable. Serious allegations have been levelled against him and without proper enquiry and without recording evidence and without providing opportunity of hearing, the agency of the petitioner has been terminated which is stigmatic. Such an order is unsustainable. Placing reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of A.M.S. Sushant v. M. Sujatha, (2000) 10 SCC 197 , it is argued by Shri Mody that termination of the agency in the facts and circumstances is unsustainable. That apart, he has placed reliance on the following judgments in support of his contentions. (1) Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy, Represented by its Partner Shri Kasturi Lal, Jammu and Others Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Another, . (2) Ajay Hasia and Others Vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Others, , and (3) J.K. Enterprises Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, . (1) Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy, Represented by its Partner Shri Kasturi Lal, Jammu and Others Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Another, . (2) Ajay Hasia and Others Vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Others, , and (3) J.K. Enterprises Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, . It is the case of the petitioner that in the present case, action has been taken against him without conducting proper enquiry is illegal and cannot be sustained. Refuting the aforesaid, respondents have filed a detailed reply and it is put forth by them that the petitioner is only an agent who receives commission for the work done by him for the Corporation. He is not an employee of the Corporation and therefore, it is not a case where concept of regular enquiry into the matter will be applicable. It is the case of the respondents that the petitioner's service conditions are governed by the regulation 16 framed under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Rules, 1972, copy of which has been filed as Annexure R/2. Regulation 4 thereof pertains to appointment of agents and there are other regulations with regard to payment of commission and other benefits which are to be extended to the agents. Termination of agency is provided under regulation 13 and various other modes for termination of agency are contained from regulation 14 to 17. According to respondents, regulation 16 contemplates termination of agency for certain lapses and regulation 17 contemplates termination of agency by notice. According to regulation 16, if an agent acts in a manner which is prejudicial to the interest of the Corporation or interest of the policy holders, his agency can be terminated. The only safeguard provided by the proviso is that the agent shall be given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against such termination. According to Shri Gupta in the present case, the petitioner for three policies as detailed in Annexure P/2 has altered the figures of premium with a view to earn higher commission. In one case, the amount of premium which was Rs. 641/- was changed to Rs. 8641/-. In the other case, the premium being Rs. Rs. 935/- was changed to Rs. 9935/- and in the other case, premium being Rs. 1711/- was changed to 11711/-. By changing these figures, the petitioner has received higher amount of premium. In one case, the amount of premium which was Rs. 641/- was changed to Rs. 8641/-. In the other case, the premium being Rs. Rs. 935/- was changed to Rs. 9935/- and in the other case, premium being Rs. 1711/- was changed to 11711/-. By changing these figures, the petitioner has received higher amount of premium. According to the respondents, show cause notice was given and the reply of the petitioner was considered and thereafter, the impugned orders were passed. It is the case of the respondents that in this case, no separate enquiry is required to be conducted. Placing reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Lalitha Devi, and a decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of B.K. Vadiraja and another vs. Managing Director, L.I.C. of India and others, AIR 2002 Kar 113 , it is argued by Shri Gupta that termination by giving one month notice vis-a-vis principles of natural justice is not arbitrary. That being so, it is submitted that the termination is proper. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The moot question in the present case is as to whether regular enquiry as in the case of a regular employee has to be conducted or procedure followed in the present case by the respondents fulfils the requirement of law. As far as the statutory rules are concerned, a perusal of regulation 16 and 17 indicates that the procedure contemplated under these regulations is only giving reasonable opportunity to show cause against such termination. Even though, there is no specific provision in the regulations directing for enquiry in the regular manner for examining of the witnesses and hearing in a given case, if the circumstances warrant the same can be read into the provisions of reasonable opportunity as contemplated in the regulations. Reasonable opportunity differs from case to case depending upon the circumstances of each case. Even though, the rules are not so specific and contemplates only reasonable opportunity to show cause, in a given case, this Court can always come to a conclusion if the circumstances require holding of an enquiry. What is required to be seen is whether such a requirement is necessary in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Even though, the rules are not so specific and contemplates only reasonable opportunity to show cause, in a given case, this Court can always come to a conclusion if the circumstances require holding of an enquiry. What is required to be seen is whether such a requirement is necessary in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are that for the purpose of receiving higher commission, the amount of premium was changed by him in three cases from Rs. 641/-to Rs. 8641/-, from Rs. 1711/-to Rs. 11711/-and from Rs. 935/- to Rs. 9935/-, by adding figures 8, 1 and 9 respectively. Even though it is the case of the petitioner that processing of the bill and calculation of commission are done by the officials of the Corporation and the petitioner is not concerned, in any manner whatsoever with the same. But from the records, it is seen that the petitioner had received higher amount of commission because of this manipulation. In paragraph 5 of the appeal, Annexure P/7, it is submitted by the petitioner that on being pointed out before issuance of the show cause notice, the excess amount of commission was refunded by him. The petitioner being a commission agent, he is supposed to know the premium collected by him every month and the commission which he is entitled to receive for the same. If, for a particular month, the petitioner had received higher amount, it should be in his knowledge, therefore a duty is cast upon him to point out to the respondent Corporation that there is something wrong. In the present case, it is seen that even though the petitioner knew that the premium collected was Rs. 641/-, Rs. 1711/- and Rs. 935/- respectively and when he received the commission at higher rate, he did not point out the same and taken action for refund only just before issuance of show cause notice. The conduct of the petitioner is not good. By referring to Annexure P/11, it was submitted by Shri Mody, learned counsel that the petitioner receives lacs of premium, and therefore, it is not possible for him to keep track of the commission received by him. I am unable to accept the aforesaid contention. The petitioner is duty bound to keep a track of the amount which he is entitled to receive. I am unable to accept the aforesaid contention. The petitioner is duty bound to keep a track of the amount which he is entitled to receive. If he has received higher amount of commission, it was his duty to point out to the respondents. The conduct of the petitioner in the present case indicates that he is deliberately kept quiet over the matter. The contention of the petitioner that the papers are processed by the staff of the respondents and the petitioner cannot be made responsible for the same may be correct. But the fact remains that the ultimate beneficiary out of the aforesaid manipulation is the petitioner alone. As a commission agent, the petitioner was expected to maintain a record of the premium collected by him and the consequential commission which he would have received. The manipulation done in the record, even if it is assumed to have been done with the active co-operation and connivance of the employees of the Corporation, the petitioner cannot shirk from his responsibility of having been a party to such a manipulation, because it is the petitioner who is ultimate beneficiary of such a manipulation. It is in the backdrop of the aforesaid fact that the question requires to be considered is as to any further enquiry was necessary in to the matter. The fact that the petitioner had received higher commission is established from the record. The petitioner has refunded the amount is also a fact. That apart, the regulations contemplate issuance of show cause notice and opportunity of hearing. Show cause notice has been issued and explanation of the petitioner has been considered. On due consideration of the same, if the respondents have taken a decision to terminate the agency of the petitioner in accordance with the statutory rules, it cannot be said that the said decision is arbitrary or unjustified. The petitioner being an agent is only entitled to receive commission for the business done and it is not a case where the concept of departmental enquiry which is to be followed in the case of regular employee is applicable. The judgments cited by Shri Mody are also not much helpful to him. The petitioner being an agent is only entitled to receive commission for the business done and it is not a case where the concept of departmental enquiry which is to be followed in the case of regular employee is applicable. The judgments cited by Shri Mody are also not much helpful to him. The Supreme Court in the case of Lalitha Devi (supra) has considered the regulations of LIC of India (Agents) Rules, 1972 and after considering the regulations 16(1) and 17(1) has held that the Corporation can terminate the agency by issuance of notice. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the procedure followed by the respondent/Corporation was not proper. Even though, as indicated hereinabove, there may be a case where certain factual aspect of the matter have to be considered after recording evidence and decision to be taken on the basis of such evidence and in such cases, the concept of holding an enquiry can be read into the rules by applying the principles of natural justice. But the nature of allegations levelled in the present case and the conduct of the petitioner does not require holding of such a detailed enquiry into the matter. A decision taken by a competent administrative authority in exercise of the powers vested in it, can be interfered with by this Court only if the same is found to be totally unreasonable or arbitrarily passed on extraneous considerations. This Court while considering the same in a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, cannot sit over the decision of such administrative authority as an appellate authority and reconsider the whole issue to find out whether the action is arbitrary or not. This Court can interfere in the matter only if the error which is complained of is so apparent that a reasonable person cannot come to such a conclusion. Considering the scope of interference in the backdrop of the aforesaid, it cannot be said that the decision taken by the respondents is so unreasonable or arbitrary that interference into the same by this Court is called for. If on the basis of the material, the conclusion arrived at is reasonable, it is impermissible for this Court to reappreciate the entire material like an appellate authority and come to a different conclusion. If on the basis of the material, the conclusion arrived at is reasonable, it is impermissible for this Court to reappreciate the entire material like an appellate authority and come to a different conclusion. That being the power and scope of interference in such matters, I am of the considered view that the decision rendered in the present case cannot be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary warranting interference by this Court in this petition. The scope of judicial review in such matters has to be considered keeping in view the aforesaid principles of law for which reference can be made to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Apparel Export Promotion Council Vs. A.K. Chopra, . In view of the above, it is to be held that there is no error in the action of the respondents in passing the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, I find no merit in this petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed