JUDGMENT

A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar., J.

The Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC of India), its Zonal Manager, Senior Divisional Manager and the Manager are the appellants before us, aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.03.2022 of the learned single Judge in WP(C)No.21711 of 2021. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ appeal are as follows:-

The petitioner in the writ petition was recruited as Apprentice Development Officer in the LIC of India by an order dated 26.10.2015. On completion of her probation she was appointed as Probationary Development Officer on 02.05.2016 with Pala Branch as her area of operation. She was subsequently confirmed as a Development Officer with effect from 01.02.2018. Under the Life Insurance Corporation of India Development Officers (Revision of Certain Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2009, as amended in 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Service Rules' for brevity), Development Officers are required to achieve the prescribed cost ratio based on a formula that is specified therein. Briefly stated, the cost ratio is the ratio of the annual remuneration received by the Development Officer to the eligible premium received by the Corporation in respect of the business secured through the Development Officer expressed as percentage. The performance of the Development Officer under the Corporation is measured through this formula after allowing for adjustments towards incentives and disincentives.

2. By an amendment to the Rules in 2016, it was stipulated that where the annual remuneration of a Development Officers in all the preceding year exceeds 50% of the eligible premium of that year, and the aggregate of the annual remuneration in the relevant year and the two appraisal years immediately preceding the relevant year exceeds 50% of the aggregate of the eligible premium in those years, the services of the Development Officer would be liable to be terminated. In the backdrop of the aforesaid statutory provision, when the performance of the writ petitioner was assessed for the year ended 30.01.2019, 31.01.2020 and 31.01.2021, she was found to have achieved a cost ratio of 228.35%, 38.39% and 88.65% respectively for the three preceding years. Inasmuch as the aggregate cost ratio was on the wrong side of 50%, the appellants proceeded to issue Ext.P4 show cause notice dated 16.02.2021 seeking an explanation from the petitioner as regards the high cost ratio. Although, the petitioner preferred Ext.P5 reply to the same, she was served with Ext.P6 final show cause notice dated 8.3.2021 asking her to show cause as to why the punishment of termination from services should not be imposed on her for not achieving the desired cost ratio. The petitioner preferred Ext.P7 reply to the said show cause notice but the same was not found acceptable and the Corporation proceeded to issue Ext.P8 letter of termination dated 22.04.2021 to the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter preferred Ext.P9 appeal before the Zonal Manager of the Corporation which also be came to be dismissed by Ext.P10 order dated

5.8.2021.

3. Aggrieved by the appellate order the writ petitioner preferred WP(C)No.17329 of 2021 before this Court. The learned single Judge finding that the appellate order had been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, set aside Ext.P10 appellate order and directed the appellate authority to re-consider the appeal after hearing the petitioner. In the proceedings that followed Ext.P14 record of personal hearing was drawn up and thereafter Ext.P15 order dated 7.10.2021 was passed by the appellate authority once again dismissing the appeal preferred by the writ petition. It was this order of the appellate authority that was impugned by the writ petitioner in the writ petition from which this appeal arises. It is relevant to notice at this stage that the writ petitioner did not prefer any revision petition against Ext.P15 appellate order although the statutory rules pro