IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2009 / 7TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 15684 of 2006(P) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- ANTONY CARDOZ, S/O.ESTHAVE CARDOZ, T.C.II/2183, ADERZ NAGAR, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM/ SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT. BY ADVS. MR.T.V.GEORGE, SMT.LINDA GEORGE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CIVIL SUB DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PEPPARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY MR.ASOK M.CHERIYAN, S.C, K.S.E.B. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.15684/2006-P: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 03/05/1996 PASSED BY R.2, K.S.E.B, TVM. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 12/06/96 ISSUED BY THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.B., PEPPARA SUB DIVISION. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 04/02/99 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ELE.) GENERAL, K.S.E.B., TVM. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 25/10/00 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ELE.) GENERAL, K.S.E.B., TVM. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 25/10/02 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHIEF ENGINEER, K.S.E.B TRIVANDRUM. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 06/09/03 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHIEF ENGINEER, CIVIL (GENERAL), K.S.E.B, TVM. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY DR. DILIP PATEL, LONG ISLAND JEWISH MEDICAL CENTER, NEW YORK TO SECRETARY, K.S.E.B, TVM. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 23/07/04 PREFERRED BY PETITIONER TO THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM) K.S.E.B, TVM. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), K.S.E.B, TVM. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO DTD. 19/09/00 ISSUED BY R.1. TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DTD. 15/10/03 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), K.S.E.B, TVM. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DTD. 28/11/03 ISSUED BY THE K.S.E.BOARD. EXT.P.13: COPY OF THE TERMINATION ORDER DTD. 24/06/04 PASSED BY CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), K.S.E.B, TVM. EXT.P.14: COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.1. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. prv. HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. -------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 15684 OF 2006 (P) ---------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T The challenge is against Exhibit P10 charge memo, Exhibit P12 show cause notice and Exhibit P13 order removing the petitioner from service. He seeks a direction for commanding the respondents to order all retirement benefits with effect from the date of his retirement. The petitioner prayed for a direction to first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exhibit P14 appeal preferred by the petitioner. By Exhibit P1 order dated 3-5-1996, Kerala State Electricity Board sanctioned leave without allowance for five years to the petitioner with effect from 6-10-1994. The leave was for taking up employment abroad. The terms and conditions stipulated in Exhibit P1 sanction order include: item No.5: “If the employee does not return to duty immediately on expiry of the leave sanctioned, his service will stand automatically terminated.” The petitioner, on expiry of the leave already sanctioned, applied vide Exhibit P3 for extension of leave. Exhibit P4 is another W.P.(C) No.15684/2006 - 2 - application filed for extension; Exhibit P5 is the remainder. No extension of leave has been sanctioned by the Board. The petitioner subsequently requested the second respondent to sanction his Voluntary Retirement on medical grounds with effect from 30-6-2003. Exhibit P6 is the said application. It is submitted by the petitioner that Exhibit P6 application was filed since he was suffering from Blood cancer and started treatment from March 2003 onwards. Exhibit P9 is the letter issued by the second respondent informing the petitioner that he has failed to rejoin duty after the expiry of the leave period and intimating that he has committed misconduct and dereliction of duty and will be subjected to disciplinary action. Exhibit P10 is the charge memo issued. The petitioner replied to the charge memo. Exhibit P12 is the show cause notice dated 28-11-2003 calling upon the petitioner to show cause why his service shall not be terminated for the unauthorised absence. To the show cause notice, petitioner did not respond, nor submitted any explanation. Exhibit P12 was followed by Exhibit P13 order of termination. It W.P.(C) No.15684/2006 - 3 - is submitted by the petitioner that against Exhibit P13 order he has filed Exhibit P14 before the first respondent. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the termination order was passed in violation of Regulation No.16(14) of the Kerala State Electricity Board Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulation, 1969 and therefore, the termination order is illegal and that the second respondent passed termination order without following the procedure prescribed under the Regulations and therefore, he preferred appeal under Rule 32(ii) of the Regulations. It is submitted by the petitioner that the appellate authority did not pass any order till date on Exhibit P14 appeal and the appellate authority is duty bound to consider and pass appropriate orders. Both sides are not in a position to say as to whether the appeal was considered and disposed of by this time. The learned counsel for the Electricity Board submitted that leave without allowance was sanctioned to the petitioner with a specific condition attached to Exhibit P1 order. It is specifically stated that if he W.P.(C) No.15684/2006 - 4 - fails to rejoin duty immediately on expiry of the leave period, his service will stand automatically terminated. The learned counsel also submitted that all the necessary formalities and procedures under the Regulations has been complied with and there is no valid grounds for interfering with the orders passed by the Board. The learned counsel relied on the decision of the Division Bench in writ appeal No.2392 of 2007 dated 26-11-2007. 3. In these circumstances, there will be a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exhibit P14 appeal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, if not disposed of earlier. The petitioner is at liberty to challenge the order, if any, passed by the first respondent in the meanwhile. The writ petition is disposed of as above. HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE skr