ORDER 1. Irked by termination of Life Insurance Corporation of India Agency, the petitioner has filed this petition seeking quashment of order dated 20.4.2001 and also the orders dated 5.4.2002 and 24.2.2003 passed in appeal and memorial, respectively. 2. Facts briefly are that the petitioner was appointed as an agent by Life Insurance Corporation of India, bearing Agency Code No.380-230 vide order dated 15.10.1992. Charge-sheet cum show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 5.3.2001 calling upon him as to why the agency be not terminated because of his failure to discharge the duties as an agent as per rule 8(3 )(b) of the Agents Regulations 1972 in so much so that in investigation, it was found that the petitioner had collected on each occasion Rs.779/- from the policy holder Shri Mukesh Kumar on 13.9.1998, 14.12.1998, 20.3.1999, 8.7.1999, 5.9.1999, 3.12.1999, 4.4.1999 and 11.6.1999 and further sum of Rs.674/- and Rs.881/- was collected from the policy holder on 6.11.2000 and 3.12.2000 respectively, and were not deposited regularly at branch but was deposited in lump-sum of Rs.9,470/ on 24.11.2000 at CAB Bhopal for the revival of the policies. This act of the petitioner attracted clause (b) of Regulation 16(1) of the Regulations 1972. Petitioner filed his reply and the competent authority after considering the same found the charges correct and an order of termination was passed on 20.4.2001. This order was affirmed in appeal on 5.4.2002 and the memorial preferred by the petitioner was rejected on 24.2.2003. 3. Petitioner challenges the order on the anvil that : (i) no enquiry was held after issuance of charge-sheet cum show cause notice; (ii) no reasonable opportunity of defence was granted to the petitioner; (iii) an investigation was held behind the back of the petitioner and the petitioner was subjected to show cause notice and proposed punishment, the procedure thus adhered to, is unknown in the field of law; (iv) there was no violation of Regulation 8(3)(b) and the authorities failed to properly construe Regulation 16(1)(b) as there was nothing on record to substantiate the charge that the petitioner acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the corporation. 4. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention that a detail enquiry ought to have been held placed reliance on the observations in paragraph 8 of the judgment rendered by the apex Court in M/s. Sukhvinder Pal Bipan Kumar and others, etc. v. State of Punjab and others [ AIR 1982 SC 65 ]. 5. The respondents on their turn support the order contending inter alia that, an opportunity of hearing as postulated under Regulation 16 was duly afforded to the petitioner and it is only after considering the reply furnished by the petitioner that the decision for termination of the agency was taken. It is contended that there is no substance in the challenge put forth by the petitioner and the petition be dismissed. 6. Regulations, 1972, viz. Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, 1972, are framed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India in exercise of powers vested in it under section 49 of Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 and with previous approval of the Central Government. 7. Regulation 3(1)(h) defines "agent" which means "a person who has been appointed under regulation 4 of these regulations and includes an absorbed agent". 8. Regulation 8 deals with functions of agents. It stipulates that : "8. Functions of agents. -- (1) Every agent shall solicit and procure new life insurance business which shall not be less than the minimum prescribed in these regulations and shall endeavour to conserve the business already secured. (2) In procuring new life insurance business, an agent shall : (a) take into consideration the needs of the proposers for life insurance and their capacity to pay premiums; (b) make all reasonable inquiries in regard to the lives to be insured before recommending proposals for acceptance, and bring to the notice of the Corporation any circumstances which may adversely affect the risk to be underwritten; (c) take all reasonable steps to ensure that the age of the life assured is admitted at the commencement of the policy; and (d) do interfere with any proposal introduced by any other agent. (3) Every agent shall, with a view to conserving the business already secured maintain contact with all persons who have become policy-holders of the Corporation through him and shall : (a) advise every policy-holder to effect nomination or assignment in respect of his policy and offer necessary assistance in this behalf; (b) endeavour to ensure that every instalment of premium is remitted by the policy-holder to the Corporation within the period of grace; (c) endeavour to prevent the lapsing of a policy or its conversion into a paid-up pelicy; and (d) render all reasonable assistance to the claimants in filling claim forms and generally in complying with the requirements laid down in relation to settlement of claims. (e) Nothing contained in these regulations shall be deemed to confer any authority on an agent to collect any moneys or to accept any risk for or on behalf of the Corporation or to bind the Corporation in any manner whatsoever: Provided that an agent may be authorized by the Corporation to collect and rerpit renewal premiums under policies on such conditions as may be specified." 9. Proviso to clause (3) of Regulation 8 thus provides that an agent may be authorised by the Corporation to collect and remit renewal premiums under policies on such conditions as may be specified. To avail renewal premiums is this one of the functions of an agent. Regulation 13 stipulates that if an agent fails to bring in the business required under Regulation 9 in an agency year, his appointment shall stand terminated at the end of such agency year. Similarly Regulation 15 provides for termination of agency on account of certain disqualification and requires no prior notice of termination on the happening of events mentioned therein. 10. Regulation 16, which is attracted in the present case, makes a provision for termination of agency for certain lapses. It stipulates: "16. Termination of agency for certain Lapses. Similarly Regulation 15 provides for termination of agency on account of certain disqualification and requires no prior notice of termination on the happening of events mentioned therein. 10. Regulation 16, which is attracted in the present case, makes a provision for termination of agency for certain lapses. It stipulates: "16. Termination of agency for certain Lapses. -- (1) The competent authority may, by order, determine the appointment of an agent: (a) if he has failed to discharge his functions, as set out in regulation 8, to the satisfaction of the competent authority; (b) if he acts in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the, Corporation or to the interests of its policy-holders; (c) if evidence comes to its knowledge to show that he has been allowing or offering to allow rebate of the whole or any part of the commission payable to him; (d) if it is found that any averment contained in his agency application or in any report furnished by him as an agent in respect of any proposal is not true; (e) if he becomes physically or mentally incapacitated for carrying out his functions as an agent; (f) If he being an absorbed agent, on being called upon to do so, fails to undergo the specified training or to pass the specified tests, within three years from the date on which he is so called upon: Provided that the agent shall be given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against such termination. (2) Every order of termination made under sub-regulation (1) shall be in writing and communicated to the agent concerned. (3) Where the competent authority proposes to take action under sub-regulation (1) it may direct the agent not to solicit to procure new life insurance business until he is permitted by the competent authority to do so." 11. Proviso to clause (1) of Regulation 16 which requires that before termination of agency on the ground of lapses the agent shall be given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against such termination, this postulate the existence of material regarding lapses. In other words, the prerequisite for taking action under clause (1) of Regulation 16 is availability of material at pre show cause notice stage thereby calling for an enquiry generally nomenclatured as fact finding enquiry and the facts so collected form the basis for a show cause. In other words, the prerequisite for taking action under clause (1) of Regulation 16 is availability of material at pre show cause notice stage thereby calling for an enquiry generally nomenclatured as fact finding enquiry and the facts so collected form the basis for a show cause. Necessary corollary would be that the show cause must not be vague. Because in case of vagueness in show cause notice it can safely be presumed that there exist no material to formulate a charge forming subject-matter of the show cause notice, this aspect of the matter finds support from the observation in M/s. Sukhvinder Pal (supra), wherein, it is observed by their Lordships "The power of cancellation or suspension of a licence, is therefore, not exercisable by the licensing authority until it affords a reasonable opportunity to the licensee of stating his case. This necessarily entails the holding of an inquiry into the question of the alleged breach." 12. In the case at hand, the charge-sheet cum show cause notice reveals an investigation being carried out at pre show cause stage, in other words, a fact finding enquiry was undertaken. To appreciate this, charge-sheet cum show cause notice may be noted which is in following terms : "Whereas, you Shri Pramod Dixit agency code 380-230 agent of Life Insurance Corporation of India, BO CAB Bhopal had procured two policies on the life of Shri Mahesh Kumar viz., policy numbers being 350297843 and 350290238; And whereas, it is found on investigation that you, Shri Pramod Dixit had collected Rs.779/- on each occasion from the policy-holder, Shri Mahesh Kumar on 13.9.1998, 14.12.1998, 20.3.1999, 8.7.1999, 5.9.1999, 3.12.1999, 4.4.1999 and 11.6.2000. Further, a sum of Rs.674/ and Rs.881/- was collected from the policy-holder on 6.11.2000 and 3.12.2000 respectively. Further, a sum of Rs.674/ and Rs.881/- was collected from the policy-holder on 6.11.2000 and 3.12.2000 respectively. These amounts were not deposited by you regularly at the branch but a lump-sum of Rs.9,470/- was deposited on 24.11.2000 at CAB Bhopal for the revival of the above referred policies; And whereas, by the aforesaid act you, have not only failed to discharge duties as an agent as per rule 8(2)(b) of the Agents Regulations 1972 but also acted in fraudulent manner; And whereas, by the aforesaid act you, Shri Pramod Dixit have acted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Corporation; And whereas, after carefully considering the documentary evidence, I have provisionally come to the conclusion that you have failed to discharge your duties as an agent and acted in a fraudulent manner by not depositing the amounts collected for the Corporation and acted prejudicially to the interests of the Corporation. I, therefore, prepose on you the penalty of termination of your agency under Regulation 16(1)(b) and forfeiture of future renewal commission as per Regulation 19 of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, 1972. However, before proceeding further I hereby direct you to show cause within a period of 15 days from the receipt of this show cause notice as to why you should not be held guilty of charges mentioned above and the penalty of termination of agency and forfeiture of future renewal commission as proposed herein above be not imposed on you. If no reply is received within the aforesaid period or if reply is not found satisfactory, further action shall ensue without further reference to you." 13. The charges are thus specific in nature and qualify sub-clause (b) of clause (1) of Regulation, 16 which states that, if the agent acts in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the corporation to the interest of the policy holders. The respondents after taking into consideration the reply filed by the petitioner passed an order of termination of agency on 20.4.2001, which was subsequently affirmed in appeal, dismissed on 5.4.2002 and the memorial rejected on 24.2.2003. 14. The contention of the petitioner is that there ought to have been a detailed enquiry after the issuance of show cause notice whereby the petitioner could have availed the opportunity to lead evidence in defence. 14. The contention of the petitioner is that there ought to have been a detailed enquiry after the issuance of show cause notice whereby the petitioner could have availed the opportunity to lead evidence in defence. Such procedure, in the considered opinion of this Court, is not borne out from the provisions i.e. proviso to Regulation 16(1) which requires that the agent shall be given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against such termination. 15. Few judgments in the context may be noted : In Canara Bank and others v. Debasis Das and others [ (2003)4 SCC 557 ], it was observed by their Lordships in paragraph 15 in the following terms : "15. The adherence to principles of natural justice as recognized by all civilized States is of supreme importance when a quasi-judicial body embarks on determining disputes between the parties, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is in issue. These principles are well settled. The first and foremost principle is what is commonly known as audi alteram partem rule. It says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice is the first limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should apprise the party determinatively of the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him. This is one of the most important principles of natural justice. It is after all an approved rule of fair play. The concept has gained significance and shades with time. When the historic documents were made at Rannymede in 1215, the first statutory recognition of this principle found its way into the "Magna Carta". The classic exposition of Sir Edward Coke of natural justice requires to "vacate, interrogate and adjudicate". In the celebrated case of Cooper V. Wandsworth Board of Works the principle was thus stated : (ER p.420) "Even God himself did not pass sentence upon Adam before he was called upon to make his defence, 'Adam' (says God) where art thou? The classic exposition of Sir Edward Coke of natural justice requires to "vacate, interrogate and adjudicate". In the celebrated case of Cooper V. Wandsworth Board of Works the principle was thus stated : (ER p.420) "Even God himself did not pass sentence upon Adam before he was called upon to make his defence, 'Adam' (says God) where art thou? Hast thou not eaten of the tree whereof, I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?" Since then the principle has been chiselled, honed and refined, enriching the content, judicial treatment has added light and luminousity to the concept, like polishing of a diamond." In Divisional Manager, Plantation Division, Andaman and Nicobar Islands v. Munnu Barrick and others [ (2005)2 SCC 237 ], it was observed by their Lordships in paragraph 17: "17. The principle of natural justice cannot be put in a straitjacket formula. It must be viewed with flexibility. In a given case, where a deviation takes place as regards compliance with the principles of natural justice, the Court may insist upon proof of prejudice before setting aside the order impugned before it. (See Bar Council of India v. High Court of Kerala)." In State of Orissa and others v. M.D. Illiyas [ (2006) 1 SCC 275 ], their Lordships were pleased to observe in paragraphs 13 and 14 : "13. The High Court has not indicated as to why according to it the prerequisite conditions stipulated were not satisfied. Vulnerability of the High Court's judgment is also apparent from the fact that it referred to the report of the Sub-Collector and held that the same did not satisfy the prerequisite conditions stipulated. The Sub-Collector's report indicated circumstances to show that the Sarpanch had willfully omitted or refused to carry out or had violated the provisions of the Act or the rules or orders made thereunder or had abused the powers, rights and privileges vested in him or had acted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the inhabitants of the Gram. 14. In the instant case, various acts of the respondent are prima facie indicative of abuse of powers, rights and privileges vested in the Sarpanch. The Collector, on the basis of materials contained in the report of the Sub-Collector, has opined that these are wilful acts. The High Court has completely lost sight of these relevant facts. 14. In the instant case, various acts of the respondent are prima facie indicative of abuse of powers, rights and privileges vested in the Sarpanch. The Collector, on the basis of materials contained in the report of the Sub-Collector, has opined that these are wilful acts. The High Court has completely lost sight of these relevant facts. The Collector's opinion at the stage of consideration is really a prima facie view on the basis of materials before him. Unless there is total absence of material and/or non-application of mind, the Courts should not interfere. The case at hand does not belong to that category." 16. Having thus considered this Court does not find any illegality in the order of termination of petitioner's agency and its affirmation in appeal and the memorial. 17. Consequently the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, no costs.