IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2009 / 30TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 24071 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ANTONY ROY.T.T, ASSISTANT ENGINEER, SUBSTATION SECTION, KUBANOOR, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.MANU ROY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC FOR KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 24071 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is presently working as Assistant Engineer in the Kerala State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'). He had availed leave without allowances for a period of five years with effect from 9.6.2005 for taking up employment abroad. After some time, the petitioner decided to cancel the unavailed portion of the leave and to rejoin service. He therefore sent a letter dated 20.8.2007 expressing his willingness to rejoin duty. According to the petitioner, there was delay on the part of the respondent in granting permission to rejoin duty. He rejoined duty on 16.5.2008. On the ground that he was unauthorisedly absent after the leave was cancelled, disciplinary action was initiated against him by the Chief Engineer which culminated in Ext.P1 order dated 3.4.2009. The petitioner has submitted Ext.P2 appeal before the Board. In this writ petition the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “(I) Issue a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent not to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner, till the W.P.(C) No. 24071/09 2 disposal of the appeal filed by the petitioner. (II) Issue a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent to dispose of the appeal within the time frame as that may be directed by this Court.” 2. The pleadings disclose that Ext.P2 appeal filed by the petitioner before the Board challenging Ext.P1 order passed by the Chief Engineer whereby the Chief Engineer of the Board imposed on him the punishment of barring of one increment without cumulative effect is pending. It is not in dispute that Ext.P2 appeal has been filed and is pending with the Board. More than two months have passed after Ext.P2 appeal was filed. I am therefore of the opinion that the Board should consider Ext.P2 expeditiously and pass orders thereon. I, accordingly, dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the Kerala State Electricity Board to consider Ext.P2 appeal and pass orders thereon expeditiously, and in any event, within two months from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before the Secretary of the Board. The Board shall also W.P.(C) No. 24071/09 3 afford the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard in person. Till orders are passed as directed above, the operation of Ext.P1 order shall be kept in abeyance. Thereafter, the right of the petitioner will be governed by the orders to be passed by the Board subject of course to his right to challenge the same in other appropriate proceedings, if aggrieved thereby. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE vps