Judgment : ChallaKodanda Ram, J. 1. The writ appeal is filed aggrieved by the order dated 05.09.2013 passed in W.P. No.23672 of 2004 by the learned single Judge in setting aside the Proceedings dated 25.07.2003 whereunder and whereby the agency of the petitioner was terminated on account of certain alleged irregularities. 2. The case of the writ petitioner is that he is an accredited agent of Life Insurance Corporation of India and is governed by Life Insurance Corporation Agents Regulations, 1972. 3. The writ petitioner was alleged to have committed certain irregularities, which were more specifically set out in the show cause notice dated 03.07.2003. Allegations pertain to briefly; that availing of loans on agent’s own policy bearing No.640711246; erased the previous loan endorsement on the policy bond by removing the previous loan papers etc. Similar notice was made with regard to Policy bearing Nos.640758519 and 640756196 of Mrs. Hemalatha agent’s wife apart from Policy bearing No.640739187 of one R.Vijaya Lakshmi. Show cause notice was replied by the petitioner on 21.07.2003 and thereafter, the impugned order came to be passed in exercise of the powers conferred on the 1st respondent in terms of the Regulations. The petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent, which also came to be dismissed. 4. The principal ground that has been urged by the writ petitioner is to the effect that no enquiry as such was conducted by the Corporation before passing the impugned order and the same is in gross violation of principles of natural justice. 5. On the other hand, the Corporation had contended that a proper reading and interpretation of the Regulation 16 would leave no doubt that no such detailed enquiry is contemplated under the Regulations and what all the Regulations contemplated is issuance of show cause notice and passing of an order, after considering explanation, if any, submitted by the agent. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner would support the order of the learned single Judge. 6. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition by setting aside the proceedings dated 25.07.2003 issued by the appellants-Corporation. The appellants were further directed to reinstate the petitioner as an Agent with all benefits to which he would be due as an agent. 7. 6. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition by setting aside the proceedings dated 25.07.2003 issued by the appellants-Corporation. The appellants were further directed to reinstate the petitioner as an Agent with all benefits to which he would be due as an agent. 7. To appreciate the controversy in issue, we may refer to the Regulation Nos.16 and 17 of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, 1972 (for short, “the Regulations”), which are dealing with the termination of agency. “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 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 or procure new life insurance business until he is permitted by the competent authority to do so. 17. Termination of agency by notice: (1) The appointment of an agent may be terminated by the competent authority at any time by giving him one month’s notice thereof in writing. (2) An agent may, by giving one month’s notice in writing to the competent authority, discontinue his agency and after the expiry of the period of one month, his agency shall stand terminated.” 8. (2) An agent may, by giving one month’s notice in writing to the competent authority, discontinue his agency and after the expiry of the period of one month, his agency shall stand terminated.” 8. A reading of the Regulation No.16 of the Regulations, would leave no manner of doubt that it is in the nature of disciplinary proceedings as understood in the service jurisprudence. The invocation of Regulation No.16 is restricted to the cases where lapses on the part of the agent’s are alleged. 9. On the other hand, Regulation No.16 of the Regulations is intended for simplicitor of termination of agency either by the Corporation or at the instance of the agent himself. A reading of the regulation which has been extracted above, no doubt, would not by itself indicate any enquiry being conducted with respect to allegations against an agent. In our considered opinion, conducting of enquiry has to be read into the regulations, otherwise the regulation No.16 would be exposed to the vice of arbitrariness. The consequences of operation of regulation No.16 against an agent are of serious in nature resulting in financial losses and also depravation of means of livelihood as an agent. 10. Further he would also loose already earned commission which would result in severe financial loss to the agent. In the present case, the allegations levelled against the petitioner are tampering with documents and removing documents from the custody of the Corporation. These allegations are serious in nature bordering the allegations of criminal conduct. When such kind of allegations are imputed against the petitioner, it is just that a proper and meaningful opportunity need to be given to the person who has been alleged all these acts to defend himself, which is possible only when a proper enquiry is conducted. We are unable to be persuaded by the judgment of the Karnataka High Court. The Karnataka High Court while dealing with facts in that case had accepted no further enquiry need to be conducted. On a close scrutiny of a judgment, we find that there was no discussion on any other aspect of the matter particularly the prejudice that may be caused if no enquiry is conducted. The Karnataka High Court while dealing with facts in that case had accepted no further enquiry need to be conducted. On a close scrutiny of a judgment, we find that there was no discussion on any other aspect of the matter particularly the prejudice that may be caused if no enquiry is conducted. It is now well settled by catena of judgments that in a case where an order of the authorities likely to result in civil consequences, before passing such an order, the same has to be preceded with an enquiry into the allegations and a meaningful opportunity of refuting such allegations is to be given to the person before a liability in civil consequences is to be fastened. We may refer to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in CANARA BANK Vs. V.K. AWASTHY (2005) 6 SCC 321 ) and CANARA BANK AND OTHERS Vs. DEBASIS DAS AND OTHERS (2003) 4 SCC 557 . 11. In that view of the matter, in our considered opinion, a proper reading of the Regulations, principles of natural justice would have to be read into. In the facts of this case, considering the serious nature of the allegations, an opportunity of enquiry, which is another facet of principles of natural justice, has to be given. For all the above reasons, we find no merit in the submissions of the appellants. 12. In the result, the Writ Appeal is dismissed giving liberty to the appellants-Corporation to conduct an enquiry into the matter by following due process of law and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.