IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2008 / 22ND SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 24392 of 2008(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ ZAREENA SALEEM,W/O MOHAMMED SALEEM, AGED 34 YEARS, NUZRATH MANZIL, K.T. WARD, KANNUR -2. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE SRI.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, (ELE) DISTRIBUTION - NORTH), VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, GANDHI ROAD, KOZHIKODE -11. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, CHOVVA, KANNUR. 4. P.SREEDHARAN, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KANNUR. BY SC FOR KSEB SRI.K.S ANIL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J ------------------- W.P.(C).24392/2008 -------------------- Dated this the13th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the wife of Sri.Mohammed Saleem who was a cashier in the service of the Kerala State Electricity Board. By Ext.P1 order dated 26.8.1992, he was granted leave without allowances for a period of five years with effect from 19.8.1992 for taking up employment abroad. It is not in dispute that when Ext.P1 order was issued, the petitioner's husband was a probationer in service. Later on his request, the leave granted as per Ext.P1 was extended for a further period of five years by order dated 14.2.1997. A further extension of five years was granted by order dated 31.10.2002. The leave granted to the petitioner's husband expired on 4.9.2007. Shortly before the expiry of the extended period of leave, the petitioner's husband submitted Ext.P2 representation dated 13.8.2007 to the second respondent seeking extension of the leave for a further period of five years from 5.9.2007. This was followed by Ext.P3 representation dated 28.2.2008. The Board evidently did W.P.(C).24392/2008 2 not grant the said request and issued Ext.P4 memo of charges dated 23.6.2008 calling upon the petitioner's husband to show cause why disciplinary action as contemplated under the K.S.E.Board Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulation, 1969 and K.S.E.Board Standing Orders for Workmen, 1996, should not be taken against him and to submit his written statement of defence within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of Ext.P4. This writ petition was thereupon filed seeking the following reliefs:- (i).Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or order first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 within such time this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant. (ii).Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or order directing 4th respondent to keep proceedings initiated under Ext.P4 in abeyance till a final decision is taken on Ext.P3. 2. Leave without allowances for taking up W.P.(C).24392/2008 3 employment abroad was granted to the petitioner's husband by the Board in terms of Appendix XIIA of Part- I, of K.S.R which applies to the employees of the Kerala State Electricity Board also. Paragraph 8 of Ext.P1 leave sanctioning order, states that if the employee does not return to duty immediately on expiry of the leave sanctioned, his service will stand automatically cancelled. The petitioner's husband is bound by the terms of the leave sanctioning order. He is also bound by the provisions of the Kerala State Electricity Board Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulation, 1969 and Standing Orders for Workmen, 1996. Evidently, the Board has not extended the leave after 4.9.2007. In these circumstances, Board is justified in issuing Ext.P4. Further, the employee concerned has not chosen to challenge Ext.P4 or to file a reply to the memo of charges. In my opinion, the wife of the employee has no right to question the memo of charges evidenced by Ext.P4 or to seek extension of the leave. The petitioner cannot be said to be a person W.P.(C).24392/2008 4 aggrieved by Ext.P4 memo of charges. She is therefore, not entitled to seek a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider and dispose of Ext.P3 or to keep Ext.P4 in abeyance till a final decision is taken on Ext.P3. In fact, Ext.P4 would indicate that the request made by the petitioner's husband in Exts.P2 and P3 has been declined. 3. For the reasons stated above, I hold that there is no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge mrcs