JUDGMENT : Heard. 2. This appeal arises out of the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 17.01.2008 in the matter of challenge to the termination of agency of the respondent agent by the appellant Life Insurance Corporation of India. 3. When the petitioner was working as an agent duly appointed by the Life Insurance Corporation, a show cause notice (Annexure1) was issued to him on 9.12.2004 with the allegations that on an inquiry it was revealed that the respondent agent submitted details with regard to proposal on the life of one Shri Kalayaneng Patel who eventually died on 01.06.2000. During an investigation, as alleged, it was revealed that the deceased Mr. Patel was suffering from Bronchitis before the date of proposal and was being treated by various doctors. However that fact was not disclosed by the respondent agent. It was further alleged that the age of the insured deceased was 65 years whereas the respondent agent had shown the age of insured as 55 years in the form signed by him. Thus, it was alleged that the respondent did not disclose the material facts about the health and the age of the insured, thereby, defrauding the Corporation. Further allegation was that the respondent agent failed to discharge the functions as an agent and acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Corporation. 4. Upon receipt of the show cause notice, the respondent submitted a detailed reply in which it was stated that alongwith the proposal, copy of ration card as an evidence of age, affidavit signed by notary public and medical test report of doctor appointed by the Corporation were submitted and the same were confirmed by the Development Officer and Medical Officer of the Corporation. These documents were sufficient for submitting proposal for insurance. 5. Vide order dated 08.01.2005, the disciplinary authority imposed penalty of termination from agency holding that the charges against the respondent agent were conclusively proved and thus he was not a fit person to be retained as an agent on the books of Corporation. The said order was challenged by way of appeal which was dismissed. 6. Aggrieved by the said order, a writ petition was preferred by the respondent agent which eventually came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order impugned in this appeal. 7. The said order was challenged by way of appeal which was dismissed. 6. Aggrieved by the said order, a writ petition was preferred by the respondent agent which eventually came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order impugned in this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that due diligence is required to be observed in an extremely important and crucial matter regarding acceptance of proposal of the insurance of a person. It is submitted that it is duty of the agent to make detailed inquiry and collect credible information with regard to entitlement of the person who applies for insurance. In the present case, the respondent was quite negligent and he did not make proper inquiry with regard to age and upon an inquiry it was found that the age of the insured was found to be different than the one disclosed in the proposal. Further, he was also found to be suffering from Bronchitis. This fact has been revealed upon inquiry and thus, the respondent agent acted negligently by not disclosing that fact. The view taken by disciplinary authority and the appellate authority that respondent agent was not fit to be retained as an agent does not warrant interference. The findings are based on admissible evidence and do not call for any interference. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent agent would argue that learned Single Judge has considered in extenso the pleadings of the parties and found that the orders of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority suffer from total non application of mind and the same were not even speaking orders as no reasons were assigned. The learned Single Judge found that respondent agent had taken all reasonable care and merely because the information submitted by the insured were found to be incorrect, that did not mean that the agent failed to discharge his duties as per Rules. Once the agent had taken all reasonable care and if subsequently any incorrect information was found to be submitted by the insured, it cannot be said that the agent was responsible for the same and negligent in discharging his duties. Thus, no interference is called for in the order of the learned Single Judge. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Thus, no interference is called for in the order of the learned Single Judge. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has found the order passed by the disciplinary authority and appellate authority unsustainable. Firstly, it has been held that the disciplinary authority has passed the order in complete non application of mind and in a mechanical manner only affirming that procedure was followed but without considering the explanation offered by the respondent agent. Secondly, we find that the learned Single Judge himself has taken pain to examine the factual aspects and found that the information which were submitted by the insured are reflected from the credible documents and were examined by the doctor. If the doctor has failed to give any opinion regarding the ailment with which the deceased insured was found to be suffering from, obviously the respondent agent could not be faulted. Thus, in our opinion, the order passed by the disciplinary authority cannot be sustained. 10. Order passed by the disciplinary authority is reproduced as below : “Whereas Shri Parvteng Solanki, Agent, Agency, Code No. 899-102, LIC of India, BO Banswara had been issued Show Cause Notice dated 09.12.2004, for the charges as fully enumerated therein and thereby, proposing to impose upon him the penalty of ‘Termination of Agency’ under regulation 16(1) of LIC of India, (Agents) Rules 1972 with forfeiture of renewal commission payable to him under Regulation 19(1) of LIC of India (Agents) Rules, 1972. And whereas Sh. Parvateng Solanki has replied to the Show Cause Notice vide his letter dated 27.12.2004. And whereas after examining the reply dated 27.12.2004 and considering all the facts and relevant documents and pertinent record of the case, I am satisfied that reasonable and adequate opportunity has been offered to Sh. Parvteng Solanki to defend himself fully and the principles of natural justice have been observed in the matter. Taking all the aspects into consideration in totality, I conclude that all the said charges against Sh. Parvteng Solanki, Agent, Agency, Code No. 899-102, are conclusively proved against him and have further come to the conclusion that he is not a fit person to be retained as an Agent on the books of Corporation. Taking all the aspects into consideration in totality, I conclude that all the said charges against Sh. Parvteng Solanki, Agent, Agency, Code No. 899-102, are conclusively proved against him and have further come to the conclusion that he is not a fit person to be retained as an Agent on the books of Corporation. I, therefore, in exercise of powers vested in me as Disciplinary Authority hereby order that the penalty of ‘Termination of Agency’ under Regulation 16(1) & forfeiture of all accrued commission payable under Regulation 19(1)) and Regulation 10(6) of LIC of India (Agents) Rules 1972 be and is hereby imposed upon Sh. Parvteng Solanki, Agent, Agency, Code No. 899-102, LIC of India, BO Banswara from the date of this orders. Dated at Udaipur, January, 8th, 2005.” 11. A perusal of the said order would show that the disciplinary authority has not applied its mind to the explanation offered by the respondent agent. The first as well as second paragraph of the order referred to the procedural aspects that notice was issued and opportunity of hearing was accorded. Thereafter, the authority proceeded to observe “Taking all the aspects into consideration in totality, I conclude that all the said charges against Shri Solanki, Agent, Agency, Code No. 899-102, are conclusively proved against him”. 12. It is beyond our comprehension as to how this order can be said to be a reasoned or even a speaking order. The disciplinary authority simply did not apply its mind to the specific charges and reply thereof and the explanation offered by the respondent much less analysing the rival case of the corporation and the agent. We have gone through the reply which has been filed by the respondent agent. The reply was not a mere formality but it contained substantial grounds and reasons in support of the case of the agent that he was not guilty of any misconduct or negligence. More than anything else, non application of mind by the disciplinary authority renders the orders passed by it as unsustainable in law. First of all, the disciplinary authority while passing an order was required to examine the oral and documentary evidence led by both the parties in support of the charges, analyse and scrutinize the same followed by conclusion on facts and law. Upon such scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence the authority was required to record findings. First of all, the disciplinary authority while passing an order was required to examine the oral and documentary evidence led by both the parties in support of the charges, analyse and scrutinize the same followed by conclusion on facts and law. Upon such scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence the authority was required to record findings. However no such exercise was done by the authority. 13. There is considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that on appeal against the order of the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority was required to examine the factual aspects and take into consideration the reply filed by the respondent agent in support of his case against the charges levelled against him but the appellate authority failed to do the same and simply passed the order affirming the order of the disciplinary authority without application of mind. In the last paragraph of the order all that has been said is that the respondent agent has not raised any ground for consideration in the appeal. This is a completely erroneous approach in law. The appellate authority must have closely scrutinized the grounds and must have examined whether the findings recorded in the order passed by the disciplinary authority suffers from any illegality as pointed out and stated in the memo of appeal. 14. We may point out here that the respondent agent is victim of total non application of mind by the authorities who proceeded to pass the order mechanically without considering the allegations made and the charges framed and also the reply filed by the respondent agent and the explanation offered against the show cause notice issued to the agent. 15. We are therefore of the view that the order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority are unsustainable in law and thus there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 16. Though learned counsel for the appellant submits that the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge setting aside the orders of the authorities that the orders were passed without application of mind and therefore, the case ought to be remanded back to the authority, we are not inclined to adopt such procedure for the reason that the matter pertains to the year 2005. At this juncture, no useful purpose would be served by remanding the matter back to the authority when the show cause notice was itself issued way back in the year 2004. In fact the other ground on which the learned Single Judge has found the order to be bad in law is that the agent placed sufficient material on record before the authority that the allegation of negligence is incorrect as all necessary steps were already taken by him along with all the reasonable care which was required to be taken while discharging his duties as an agent of the Corporation. 17. As a result, we did not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge in this appeal and the same is dismissed accordingly. 18. The interim order dated 01.12.2008 is vacated.