JUDGMENT : MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J. 1. The petitioner is a Development Officer in the 1st respondent Life Insurance Corporation of India. By Ext.P13, the 3rd respondent passed an order terminating the service of the petitioner as a Development Officer which is to take effect on expiry of 3 months from the date of receipt of the order in terms of the provisions of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Development Officers (Revision of Certain Terms and Conditions of Service Rules) 2009 as amended by Amendments Rules 2016. Against Ext.P13 order, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal dated 01.12.2021 before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent by Ext.P14 order rejected the appeal. Challenging Ext.P14, the petitioner has approached this Court. According to the petitioner, she could not bring in the required premium for the appraisal year due to the situation created by Covid-19 pandemic and the maternity leave availed. The 2nd respondent without considering these aspects and without hearing the petitioner, has passed Ext.P14 dismissing her appeal. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. S. Easwaran, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that Ext.P14 order has been passed without application of mind and in total disregard to the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was not heard before passing the order of termination and the contentions of the petitioner in the appeal was not considered by the 2nd respondent with due application of mind. 4. Per contra, Sri. S. Easwaran, the learned Standing Counsel submits that there is no provision under the statute governing the consideration of appeal, which provides for a personal hearing of the parties before an order is passed in the appeal. 5. Since it is not disputed that Ext.P14 has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, I find that the order is issued in violation of principles of natural justice. If the statute is silent with regard to providing opportunity of personal hearing to the affected person, particularly when the decision involves adverse civil consequences of termination of service, natural justice has to be read in to the statute. Accordingly, I set aside Ext.P14. There will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider afresh the appeal dated 01.12.2021 filed by the petitioner against Ext.P13 order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Accordingly, I set aside Ext.P14. There will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider afresh the appeal dated 01.12.2021 filed by the petitioner against Ext.P13 order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The hearing can be either physically or virtually. The Appellate Authority shall consider the contentions of the petitioners in Ext.P13 and shall pass a reasoned order. Orders as above shall be passed within a period of eight weeks. Till such time the appeal is heard and disposed of and the order communicated to the petitioner, the petitioner shall continue in service as Development Officer in the Life Insurance Corporation of India. 6. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.