IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2011 / 28TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 22598 of 2011(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER:- ------------------ N.A.AJAYAKUMAR, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. APPU, RESIDING AT NOCHUVALAPPIL HOUSE, RAMAVARMAPURAM P.O., KUTTYMUKKU, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.DINESH RESPONDENTS:- ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEPUTY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE(C) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICE, GENERAL HOSPITAL JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH, DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICE, THRISSUR. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 22598 of 2011(Y) PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- P1: COPY OF THE LEAVE WITHOUT ALLOWANCE APPLICATION FORM. P2: COPY OF THE FORWARDING LETTER FROM 4TH RESPONDENT DTD.20.7.2005. P3: COPY OF THE GO(Rt) NO.2828/2006/H&FWD DTD.26.9.2006. P4: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DTD.2.11.2006. P5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD.4.12.2006. P6: COPY OF THE WRITTEN EXPLANATION OF THE PETITIONER. P7: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY 3RD RESPONDENT ON 8.1.2008. P8: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.27.7.2010 TO 3RD RESPONDENT. P9: COPY OF THE FORWARDING LETTER DTD.7.8.2010. P10: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL. ( TRUE COPY ) PA TO JUDGE. Kvs/- C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.22598 of 2011-Y. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 19th August, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner joined service under the Health & Family Welfare Department as a Junior Health Inspector Grade II on 9.6.2005 at Primary Health Centre, Vallathole Nagar. Immediately, thereafter, he had applied for leave without allowance for a period of five years on 18.6.2006. Even without waiting to see whether it is sanctioned or not the petitioner went abroad for the purpose of taking up employment. The contention of the petitioner is that he was under the bonafide impression that the leave application would be granted. It is evident that the petitioner had went abroad and taken up employment even before getting the leave without allowance sanctioned by the competent authority. There can be little doubt that no employee can enter on leave without allowances as a matter of right without the sanction from the competent authority. However, the contention of the petitioner is that WP(C).No.22598/2011-Y. 2 subsequently as per Ext.P3 LWA leave applied for was sanctioned by the Government. It was without considering the said aspect that Ext.P7 order was passed on 8.1.2008 terminating his probation and consequently discharging him from service. Challenging the said action on the part of the 3rd respondent the petitioner has preferred Ext.P8 appeal. No action was so far been taken by the 3rd respondent. It is in the said circumstances that this writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P7 order and seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to regularise his service and such other reliefs. 2. Admittedly, the petitioner has already been discharged from service. Therefore, in case the petitioner intends to raise any grievance against the said order he has to raise such grievances before the Government. In the said circumstance, this writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge Ext.P7 order of termination of probation and the consequential discharge from service by filing appropriate petition before the Government. The WP(C).No.22598/2011-Y. 3 petitioner may do so within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In case the petitioner files such a petition within the stipulated time, the same shall be considered by the Government at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such petition. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observation as to the merits of the contentions of the petitioner. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, (Judge) Kvs/-