IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2008 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 9924 of 2008(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ANANDA BAI.S.NAIR, W/O.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR, VANETH PUTHENVEEDU, KANJEETTUKARA P.O., AYROOR SOUTH, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL SAVINGS, DIRECTORATE OF NATIONAL SAVINGS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KOIPRAM, THIRUVALLA. 5. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SAVINGS, PATHANAMTHITTA. 6. POST MASTER GENERAL, KERALA CIRCLE, OFFICE OF THE POST MASTER GENERAL, KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, THIRUVALLA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED FAZIL SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASG THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 9924 OF 2008 F ==================== Dated this the 27th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was appointed as an agent of Mahila Pradhan Kshetriya Bachat Yojana Agent and Standardized Agency System Agent, the period of which now stands extended by Exts. P1 and P2 till 01/08/2008 and 16/08/2009 respectively. According to her, on account of the ill feeling harboured by those in authority on account of Ext.P3 crime registered at her instance, on their instigation, the District Collector issued Ext.P4 show cause to which the petitioner has given Exts. P8 and P9. It is stated that nothing further was heard, but then she received Ext.P5 order of termination from the 4th respondent being the appointing authority. According to her, reading of Ext.P5 shows that the 4th respondent was acting at the dictate of the 3rd respondent, who had issued Ext.P6, which the petitioner submits that she got invoking the provisions of the Right to Information Act. According to the petitioner, the order Ext.P5 is liable to be set aside particularly for the reason that the appointing authority was wholely guided by the dictates of the 3rd respondent and had not independently applied his mind to the facts of the case. WPC 9924/08 :2 : 2. Yet another ground urged is that the 4th respondent did not issue any show cause notice nor was the petitioner heard by the 4th respondent. 3. Irrespective of the controversies that are now raised, I notice that the petitioner has moved the 2nd respondent by filing Ext.P7 representation, where all the grounds that are available to her have been urged. In view of this, I feel that justice can be done to the petitioner by directing the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P7 with notice to the petitioner and after affording her an opportunity of hearing. 4. Therefore, the writ petition will stand disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to take up and consider Ext.P7 representation made by the petitioner challenging Ext.P5 order dated 14/3/2008 issued by the 4th respondent. This the 2nd respondent shall do with notice to the petitioner as stated above, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. 5. It is directed that pending finalisation of the proceedings as above, all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P5 will stand deferred and it is clarified that this order will not enable the petitioner to work as Mahila WPC 9924/08 :3 : Pradhan Kshetriya Bachat Yojana Agent and Standardized Agency System Agent. 6. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp