ORDER : Leave granted. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties finally at this stage itself with their consent. 3. The appellant in this appeal challenges the orders dated 04.10.2012 passed by the High Court of Kerala whereby the appeal of the appellant had been dismissed thereby confirming the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant herein. 4. The brief facts are that the appellant was appointed as a Career Agent Trainee in the year 1987 by Respondent No.1. After completion of his training, he was appointed as the Career Agent. After serving in that capacity for nearly 11 years and keeping in view his satisfactory performance, the appellant was given Membership to the Divisional Managers' Club in the year 1998. The appellant states that he has been performing his duties as Member of the Divisional Managers' Club to the satisfaction of Respondent No.1 and was even awarded certificates because of his outstanding achievements. He was also given Award of Excellence for the period 2000-2001 in recognition of his distinguished and dedicated performance. 5. On 19.04.2004, the appellant was given a show cause notice alleging therein that he had mis-conducted himself in respect of two insurance policies which were given to two persons viz., Smt. Ruby Mathew and Shri Sanal Kumar S. by suppressing the facts about their earlier policies. Had those facts been disclosed, these persons were not entitled to take another policy which was given to them. It was, thus, proposed to terminate the agency of the appellant under Rule 16(1)(b) with forfeiture of renewal commission under Rule 19(1) of Agents Regulations 1972 for "committing fraud by suppressing the existence of previous policy details of Smt. Ruby Mathew a/s Ruby Scaria and Shri Sanal Kumar S. and thereby acting in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Corporation. After giving opportunity of hearing and reply to the said show cause notice and considering the same, final order dated 21.04.2004 was passed stating that reply received was not satisfactory and the facts of the aforesaid cases showed that the appellant had "tried to defraud the Corporation, thereby acting in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Corporation". On that basis, the agency of the appellant was terminated and the renewal commission was also forfeited. The appellant took the departmental remedy by filing appeals and petitions, which were dismissed. On that basis, the agency of the appellant was terminated and the renewal commission was also forfeited. The appellant took the departmental remedy by filing appeals and petitions, which were dismissed. Challenging these actions of the respondents, the appellant approached the High Court of Kerala by filing a writ petition. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, which order of the Single Judge, as mentioned above, has been upheld by the Division Bench also in intra-court appeal preferred by the appellant resulting into dismissal of the said appeal as well. 6. From the aforesaid factual matrix, it is clear that two-fold action was taken against the appellant, viz.:- (1) Termination of his agency. (2) Forfeiture of commission. 7. Insofar as action of termination of agency of the appellant is concerned, we find that as far as the two instances of suppression of certain facts while issuing policies to the aforesaid persons are concerned, they were adequately proved and it can be discerned that the authorities concerned rightly came to the conclusion that the said acts were prejudicial to the interest of the Corporation. Therefore, as far as termination of the agency of the appellant is concerned, this action was legal and justified. 8. We may point out at this stage that even while issuing notice in the special leave petition filed by the appellant, this Court made it clear that notice was being issued only to examine the limited question as to the monetary consequences of the termination of the agency. 9. It is, thus, clear that this notice was limited to Issue No.2 above, viz., whether the action of forfeiture of commission taken by Respondent No.1 was justified in law. 10. It is obvious that the action was taken against the appellant under Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulation, 1972. The relevant Rules for our purposes are Rules 15, 16 and 19 of the aforesaid Rules which are reproduced hereinbelow: - "15. 10. It is obvious that the action was taken against the appellant under Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulation, 1972. The relevant Rules for our purposes are Rules 15, 16 and 19 of the aforesaid Rules which are reproduced hereinbelow: - "15. Termination of agency on account of certain disqualification: If an agent: (a) is found to be of unsound mind by a court of competent jurisdiction; (b) is found to be guilty of criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust or cheating or forgery or an abetment of or attempt to commit any such offence by a court of competent jurisdiction; (c) in any judicial proceeding, has been found to have knowingly participated in or connived at any fraud, dishonesty or misrepresentation against the Corporation or any of its subsidiaries or against any person having official dealings with the Corporation or any of its subsidiaries, his appointment shall be liable to be terminated without notice and the competent authority shall forthwith terminate his appointment. 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 & 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 policyholders; (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 fine; (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. (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. xx xx xx 19. Payment of commission on discontinuance of agency: (1) In the event of termination of the appointment of an agent, except for fraud, the commission on the premiums received in respect of the business secured by him shall be paid to him if such agent: (a) has continually worked for at least 5 years since his appointment and policies assuring a total sum of not less than Rs.2 lakhs effected through him were in full force on a date one year before his ceasing to act as such agent; or (b) has continually worked as an agent for at least 10 years since his appointment; or (c) being an agent whose appointment has been terminated under clause (e) of sub-regulation (1) of regulation 16 has continually worked as an agent for at least two years from the date of his appointment and policies assuring a total sum of not less than Rs.1 lakh effected through him were in full force on the date immediately prior to such termination: Provided that in respect of an absorbed agent the provisions of clause (a) shall apply as if for the letters, figures and word Rs.2 lakhs", the letters and figures Rs.50,000" had been substituted. (2) Any commission payable to an agent under sub-regulation (1) shall, notwithstanding his death, be payable to his nominee or nominees or, if no nomination is made or is subsisting to his heirs, so long as such commission would have been payable had the agent been alive. (2) Any commission payable to an agent under sub-regulation (1) shall, notwithstanding his death, be payable to his nominee or nominees or, if no nomination is made or is subsisting to his heirs, so long as such commission would have been payable had the agent been alive. (3) In the event of the death of the agent while his agency subsists, any commission payable to him had he been alive, shall be paid to his nominee, or, if no nomination is made or if subsisting, to his heirs, so long such commission would have been payable had the agent been alive, provided he had continually worked as an agent for not less than 2 years from the date of his appointment and policies assuring a total sum of not less than Rs.1 lakh effected through him were in full force on the date immediately prior to his death. (4) If the renewal commission payable under sub-regulation (1) or sub-regulation (2) or sub-regulation (3) falls below Rs.100/- in any financial year (hereinafter referred to as the said financial year), the competent authority may, notwithstanding anything contained in the said sub-regulation, commute all commission payable in subsequent financial years for a lump sum which shall be three times the amount of renewal commission paid in the said financial year and on the payment of such lump sum to the agent or his nominees or heirs, as the case may be, no commission on the business effected through the agent shall be payable in the financial years subsequent to the said financial year." As is clear from the reading of the aforesaid Rules, under Rule 15, agency can be terminated on account of certain disqualifications incurred by the agent. Once such a disqualification is provided in clause (c) thereof which, inter alia, lays down that if in any judicial proceeding the agent is found to have knowingly participated in or connived at any fraud, dishonesty or misrepresentation against the Corporation or any of its subsidiaries or against any person having official dealings with the Corporation or any of its subsidiaries, in such an event, the agency can be terminated. That Rule also provides that if any of the three grounds mentioned therein is satisfied, the agency can be terminated even without notice to the agent. Rule 16, on the other hand, provides for termination of agency on "certain lapses". That Rule also provides that if any of the three grounds mentioned therein is satisfied, the agency can be terminated even without notice to the agent. Rule 16, on the other hand, provides for termination of agency on "certain lapses". Various kinds of lapses are stipulated in the said Rule. Since the show cause notice in the instant case was issued under Rule 16(1)(b), it is clear that here the agency of the appellant was terminated on the ground that he had acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Corporation. 11. In fact, as pointed out above, that is precisely the reason given even in the order of termination of agency. The question is, as to under what circumstances, when such agency is terminated, payment of renewal commission also can be discontinued. The provision in this behalf is contained in Rule 19. Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 19 prescribes the normal rule of payment of commission on premiums received in respect of the business secured by the agent, even after the termination of his appointment. However, disqualification for earning such commission is in a case where termination is on account of fraud committed by the agent. In the instant case, we find that though in the show cause notice, the charge was that the appellant had "committed fraud by suppressing the existence of previous policy details", in the final order which was passed, no such finding of having committed fraud were arrived at by the competent authority. On the contrary, what is alleged is that the appellant "tried to defraud". Thus, it is only an allegation of attempt to fraud which is proved against the appellant. Presumably, it was because of the reason that the Insurance Corporation did not suffer any pecuniary loss or disadvantage because of the aforesaid acts of the appellant on the basis of which his agency was terminated. This is an admitted position which is even recorded in the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court. The admitted position which therefore, emerges from record is as follows: (1) The agency of the appellant was cancelled on the ground that the acts of the appellant were prejudicial to the interest of the Corporation. (2) The Corporation did not suffer any loss, whatsoever, on account of grant of the aforesaid policies. The admitted position which therefore, emerges from record is as follows: (1) The agency of the appellant was cancelled on the ground that the acts of the appellant were prejudicial to the interest of the Corporation. (2) The Corporation did not suffer any loss, whatsoever, on account of grant of the aforesaid policies. (3) Though there was an allegation that the acts of the appellant were fraudulent, in the final order passed, the finding given was that the appellant attempted to defraud the Corporation. 12. As we have noticed above, the payment of commission on discontinuance of the agency cannot be withheld except in the case of fraud and as his fraud has not been established in the instant case, the Corporation could not withhold the renewal commission due to the appellant. 13. This appeal, accordingly, is partly allowed setting aside that part of the order dated 21.04.2004 vide which the renewal commission is forfeited. The said commission payable to the appellant shall be released to the appellant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by the Corporation. No orders as costs.