Termination of an agency for a son’s misconduct was quashed absent allegations against the agent herself.

The petitioner was appointed as a Mahila Pradhan Kshetriya Bachat Yojana (MPKBY) Agent on 28 January 2002 and had served for approximately 24 years without any complaint concerning her integrity, honesty, work, or dealings with depositors.

She was a 67-year-old widow and claimed that the agency was her sole source of livelihood.

During an inspection at Katargam Post Office on 16 April 2026, the petitioner’s son allegedly misbehaved with a postal officer, following which a show-cause notice proposing termination of the petitioner’s agency was issued on 6 May 2026.

After considering her reply, the Resident Additional Collector, Surat, cancelled her MPKBY Agency No. 133/SUR/MPKBY/2002 by order dated 18 June 2026.

In the writ petition, the petitioner and her son filed affidavits undertaking that the son would not enter the Katargam Post Office or assist in agency-related work, and the son tendered an unconditional apology.

Whether the order dated 18 June 2026 cancelling the petitioner’s MPKBY agency was liable to be quashed where the alleged misconduct was attributable to her son and there was no allegation concerning the petitioner’s own integrity, honesty, work, or conduct.

Whether the petitioner’s age, status as a widow, dependence on the agency for livelihood, and the undertakings and apology furnished by her son justified judicial interference with the cancellation order on humanitarian grounds.

The Court did not rely on any specific statutory provision or judicial precedent in the judgment.

It applied the principles governing judicial review of administrative action, including consideration of the material basis for cancellation, the connection between the alleged misconduct and the agency-holder, and the proportionality and fairness of the consequence imposed.

The Court also considered relevant humanitarian circumstances, including the petitioner’s advanced age, widowhood, livelihood dependence, long service, and the absence of allegations against her personal integrity or agency-related conduct.

The Court found that the termination was based on the alleged misbehaviour of the petitioner’s son rather than on any proven misconduct by the petitioner in the discharge of her agency functions.

There was no complaint from the petitioner’s clients and no allegation affecting her honesty, integrity, or devotion to the work.

The Court further took into account the petitioner’s age and financial dependence on the agency, together with her undertaking to prevent her son from assisting her or entering the post office for agency-related work.

The son’s unconditional apology and corresponding undertaking materially addressed the conduct that had led to the cancellation.

In these circumstances, the Court considered cancellation of the agency unjustified and warranted interference with the administrative order.

The Court quashed and set aside the impugned order, allowed the petition, and made the Rule absolute.