'Vanity and arrogance can have no room in the discharge of official functions and duties', is a salutory slogan in service jurisprudence. Nonetheless, the case on hand unravels the plight of an employee who became a victim of arrogance and vanity of the first and the fourth respondents. The petitioner joined the Pallikkunnu Grama Panchayat as Special Grade Secretary on 27.12.2010. She applied for earned leave from 12.1.2011 to 31.3.2011 on medical ground. Since her service book was not available in the office of the second respondent-Deputy Director of Panchayat, Kannur, pending decision thereon, the second respondent directed her to hand over charge to the Junior Superintendent of Pallikkunnu Grama Panchayat vide Ext.P1 proceedings dated 14.1.2011 and the latter was directed to take full additional charge of Special Grade Secretary, with a view to avert any possible disturbance in the quotidian functions of the said office. Accordingly, she handed over the charge to the Junior Superintendent. In the meanwhile, she had miscarriage on 15.1.2011 and thereupon, she was advised complete rest. Consequently, she sought for considering the leave from 15.1.2011 as leave on miscarriage in terms of the provisions under Rule 101 Part I of the Kerala Service Rules (for short the 'KSR'). As per Ext.P2, the second respondent granted earned leave for three days from 12.1.2011 to 14.1.2011 and leave on miscarriage for 42 days from 15.1.2011 to 25.2.2011. Thereafter, leave on medical grounds was sanctioned to her as per Ext.P3. The second respondent again sanctioned her leave from 1.4.2011 to 16.4.2011. In the meanwhile, owing to her transfer to a station nearer to her residence viz., Pappinissery Grama Panchayat, she sought for cancellation of the unavailed portion of leave. As per Ext.P4, the Director of Panchayath, the third respondent cancelled the unavailed portion of leave and posted the petitioner to Pappinissery Grama Panchayat. Ext.P5 is the formal consequential order passed by the second respondent. Consequently, she joined there on 1.4.2011.Thereafter, the petitioner approached the first respondent on several occasions requesting to draw and disburse her salary, the leave salary from 12.1.2011 to 31.3.2011 and also for forwarding her Last Pay Certificate (LPC) to Pappinissery Grama Panchayat to enable her to draw salary from 1.4.2011. Inaction on the said requests compelled the petitioner to approach the second respondent through Ext.P6 representation. On its receipt, the second respondent directed the first respondent to draw and disburse the leave salary of the petitioner and also to forward her LPC to the concerned panchayat, as per Ext.P7. However, the first respondent did not comply with the said directions citing the reasons viz., passing of a resolution by the panchayat on 28.4.2011 holding the petitioner unauthorisedly absent, passing of an order by the fourth respondent, the President of Pallikkunnu Grama Panchayat not to disburse salary to the petitioner and also his action in not authorising for payment of petitioner's salary. On receipt of Ext.P8 carrying such explanation, the second respondent informed the first respondent through Ext.P9 that the said explanations for non-compliance with the directions in Ext.P7 are not satisfactory. The first respondent was informed that leave was duly sanctioned to the petitioner and that as per the relevant rules, an authorisation of the President is not required for disbursement of salary. The non-compliance with the said directions, even thereafter, made the second respondent to bring the matter to the attention of the third respondent for appropriate action in the matter. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the petitioner's leave salary was not so far been disbursed and the LPC was not so far been forwarded to Pappinissery Grama Panchayat. The grievance of the petitioner pertains to the non-compliance with such directions by the first respondent and the consequential non-d