ORDER : Petitioner is assailing the order terminating the agency passed by the respondent (Annexure-E) passed under Regulation 16(1)(b) of LIC (Agent) Regulation, 1972. 2. Petitioner submits that show cause notice dated 15-12-1998 was issued containing certain charges on the allegation that permanent address is given by the petitioner which is the address of his father, whereas he gives his separate residential address at Indira Nagar, Bara, Rewa. Therefore, separate address appears to be a fraudulent act intended to take advantage, allegation of filing false affidavit was also levelled. The act was alleged to be violative of Regulation 16(1)(b), therefore, notice was issued so as to show cause why the agency should not be terminated. Petitioner submitted reply, however, Order Annexure-E was passed by Branch Manager on 21-4-1999 and agency was terminated under Regulation 16(1)(b) of LIC (Agent) Regulation, 1972. Petitioner has assailed the order on the ground that alleged conduct did not cause any loss to the LIC or policy holders which alone attracts the punishment under Regulation 16(1)(b), no enquiry was conducted, the order is predated, residential address can be different from permanent address. 3. In the return filed by respondents No. 3 and 4, it is contended that petition is misconceived, frivolous and filed with ulterior motives, infact as per policy of LIC, agency of near relative of a direct agent living jointly in a same roof cannot be attached with any Development Officer and his agency is also direct. This policy is framed just with a view to avoid any influence and also with a view to save the public money, which is required to be paid to the Development Officer on account of incentive bonus, conveyance and additional conveyance allowance etc. Initially the agency of father of petitioner C. P. Samdaria, who is also an agent and member of the Chairman Club of LIC was attached with the Development Officer Shri N. P. Tiwari. Later on the agency of the petitioner also attached with the same Development Officer Shri Tiwari, but on retirement of Shri Tiwari the agency of the father of the petitioner Shri C. P. Samdaria became direct and he was operating the direct agency. Petitioner applied for attachment of agency in 1997 with Shri Sanjeev Mehrotra Development Officer which prayer was rejected. Petitioner applied for attachment of agency in 1997 with Shri Sanjeev Mehrotra Development Officer which prayer was rejected. Petitioner submitted an affidavit to attach his agency with the same Development Officer Shri Mehrotra stating in the affidavit that he is living separately from his father at Indira Nagar, Rewa. Relying on the said affidavit, the agency of the petitioner was attached with Shri Sanjeev Mehrotra, Development Officer but when during the course of inspection of the branch, it was found that petitioner has submitted false affidavit and he was not living separately but was living with his father, enquiry was conducted by the Manager (OS) Shri V. S. Shikharwar. In his report dated 21-11-1998 Shri Shikharwar has submitted that the affidavit submitted by the petitioner is false, petitioner was living with his father jointly and not on the address given by him. Show cause notice was issued, action has been initiated against Shri Sanjeev Mehrotra and an order has been issued to deposit the amount of benefit received by him through the agency of the petitioner. Petitioner has defrauded the respondents and his agency has been rightly terminated under Regulation 16(1)(b), he has been given reasonable opportunity to show cause, reply was not found satisfactory, circular R/8 dated 24-4-1980 is relied on so as to buttress the plea of misconduct. Order R/6 passed on 1-10-1999 shows that appeal has been dismissed by Zonal Manager. 4. Shri V. K. Shukla, learned counsel appearing for petitioner has submitted that action is not in accordance with the principles of natural justice, the order Annexure/E and the appellate order R/6 are devoid of merit as it is not mentioned in the orders that what are the charges levelled against the petitioner, what is reply submitted, explanation giving by the petitioner has not been considered, orders have been passed in mechanical manner without due application of mind, thus, orders deserve to be quashed. He has submitted that even otherwise in the facts and circumstances of the case, no misconduct is made out and proper enquiry has not been conducted. 5. Shri D. K. Dixit, learned counsel appearing for respondents has supported the orders and contended that in view of the enquiry report and overwhelming material and mention of the charges in the show cause notice, it is clear that authority has considered the relevant documents and material. 5. Shri D. K. Dixit, learned counsel appearing for respondents has supported the orders and contended that in view of the enquiry report and overwhelming material and mention of the charges in the show cause notice, it is clear that authority has considered the relevant documents and material. It is not a fit case to make an interference in the writ jurisdiction of this Court when from the documents on record, misconduct is clearly proved. 6. Perusal of the impugned Order (E) and appellate order (R/6) indicates that in both the orders, it has not been mentioned what is the charge against the petitioner on the basis of which show cause notice was issued, it is also not mentioned what is the explanation furnished by the petitioner and how that is found to be untenable, as a matter of fact, both the orders have been passed in purely mechanical manner without due consideration of the charges on the basis of which show cause notice was issued, facts have not been taken into consideration no facts are mentioned in the order constituting misconduct, if any, opportunity of representation is a valuable right, petitioner has submitted the reply to the show cause notice, its due consideration is the basic minimum requirement to sustain an order which is punitive in nature, otherwise giving right of representation would be rendered an empty formality. In the instance case, representation has not been considered at all, consideration means not simply mentioning that representation is found to be baseless, what are the facts mentioned in the representation and how explanation is found to be unsustainable must be based on reason which has not been done either in the order (E) or in the Order (R/6) passed by the appellate authority. The rule of reason is antithesis to arbitrariness in action, no reasons are mentioned in orders. 7. Thus, the orders Annexure/E and R/6 are quashed. The respondents are at liberty to hear the petitioner, consider the representation and various other objections of the petitioner as to nature of the enquiry conducted, etc. and thereafter to take a decision afresh by a reasoned and speaking order. If the respondents so desire, action be taken and completed within three months from today. 8. Writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.