IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2008 / 30TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 16808 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ Dr.T.A.SHAFEEQ RIAZ, 'ZEPHYRUS' P.O.KAKKODI, VIA KOZHIKODE, PIN 673 611. BY ADV. SRI.C.V.BIMAL ROY SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVT. HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE PRINCIPAL, MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE. BY GOVT. PLEADER SHRI A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN,J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.16808 of 2008 A -------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of August, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner was working as Lecturer in Radio Therapy, Medical College, Kozhikode. He submitted leave application for eligible earned leave from 25.2.2005. Leave applied was for 70 days on medical grounds. However, no medical certificate was produced. Petitioner left the Department. Principal of the Medical College issued a memo dated 10.3.2005 directing the petitioner to report for duty within one week. The petitioner did not comply with the same. The Principal reported the matter to the Director of Medical Education stating that petitioner was unauthorisedly absent with effect from 25.2.2005. A registered letter dated 28.5.2005 was issued to the petitioner directing him to report for duty. Thereupon the petitioner requested for extending the joining time upto 15.8.2005. Later, he made a request to the Director of Medical Education to issue orders to the Principal of the Medical College to permit the petitioner to rejoin duty on 1.8.2005. Pending sanction of leave, the petitioner was permitted to rejoin duty. Later, the Principal informed the Director of Medical Education that the petitioner left the Department after submitting an application seeking permission to avail holidays from 13.8.2005 to 15.8.2005 and casual leave from 16.8.2008 to 19.8.2005. Thereafter, the petitioner did not report for duty and he was treated as on unauthorized absence with effect from 13.8.2005. WP(C) No.16808/2008 2 2. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner directing him to show cause why the provisional decision to terminate probation of the petitioner with effect from 13.8.2005 should not be confirmed. The petitioner received the show cause notice and submitted the written statement of defence. The petitioner did not express his desire to rejoin duty. On the other hand he made a request for leave without allowance for a period of five years with effect from 13.8.2005. It is stated in Ext.P6 order that leave could not be sanctioned in view of the Government Order dated 22.7.2003. The Director of Medical Education passed Ext.P6 order dated 2.8.2006 confirming the provisional decision for terminating the probation and temporary appointment of the petitioner. 3. Ext.P6 order was passed on 2.8.2006. Petitioner submitted Ext.P7 representation dated 14.3.2008 to the Secretary to the Government, seeking to set aside the termination order and to reinstate the petitioner in service. 4. The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the following:- “i) issue a Writ of Certiroari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash Ext.P6 order after calling for the records leading to its issuance; ii) issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P7 WP(C) No.16808/2008 3 representation forthwith; iii) issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all back wages; and iv) issue such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 5. When the Writ Petition came up for admission on 5.6.2008, I passed an order which reads as follows:- “It is stated in paragraph 6 of the statement of facts that the petitioner had submitted several representations before the first respondent challenging Ext.P6. It is also stated that Ext.P7 is a copy of the last representation dated 14.3.08. Ext.P6 is dated 2.8.06. The petitioner shall produce copies of the representations said to have been submitted by him before the first respondent before the submission of Ext.P7. The petitioner shall also produce sufficient evidence to show that those representations were sent to the first respondent / or received by the first respondent. Post after two weeks.” Though enough time was granted, the petitioner could not produce any evidence to show that he had submitted representations or challenged Ext.P6 order at any WP(C) No.16808/2008 4 time before March, 2008. 6. The prayer to grant relief to quash Ext.P6 order dated 2.8.2006 cannot be entertained at this distance of time. Ext.P6 shows that all the relevant facts are taken note of. Enough time was granted to the petitioner to rejoin duty. The petitioner absent himself. There is no plausible explanation for his unauthorized absence. Therefore, there was enough justification for passing Ext.P6 order. 7. As regards the prayer to issue a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to consider Ext.P7 representation, I am of the view that after a lapse of two years, it would not be proper for the petitioner to rake up the issue and to unsettle the settled position. The petitioner could not prove that within a reasonable time, he has challenged Ext.P6 order. It is also not proved that he was ready to rejoin duty in spite of repeated directions. I am of the view that the Writ Petition lacks merits and it is accordingly dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. cks