IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 31713 of 2009(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SEBASTIAN M.K.,SON OF MATHEW, RESIDING AT PADIKKALATH,KANHANGAD VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK,KASARAGODE DISTRICT. LAB TECHNICIAN,LEPROSY CONTROL UNIT, CHERUVATHUR,KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.K.SANEESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, KANHANGAD,POST KANHANGAD, KASARAGODE-671 315. 2. MEDICAL OFFICER, LEPROSY CONTROL UNIT,CHERUVATHUR, POST CHERUVATHUR,KASARGOD DISTRICT, PIN-671 313. 3. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPT., GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.31713 OF 2009 (H) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was a Lab Technician in the leprosy Control Unit since 1999. He availed of leave without allowance for 5 years from 2001 to 2006. It is his case that he applied for extension of leave for a further period of 5 years and that though the application was forwarded by the first respondent to the 3rd respondent, orders have not been passed. It is stated that subsequently he was issued Ext.P1, a memo of charges to which he has filed his reply by Ext.P3. Considering the reply Ext.P4 show cause notice was issued calling upon the petitioner as to why he shall not be removed from service. On its receipt again he has filed Ext.P5 reply. It is at this stage the writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P4. 2. In my view, even going by the pleadings of the petitioner, the writ petition is premature as the punishment is only proposed and not imposed. A delinquent can legally redress his grievances only when an adverse decision is taken by the disciplinary authority. In this case no such decision is taken. WPC.No.31713 /09 :2 : Accordingly, the writ petition is closed leaving the petitioner to pursue his grievances at the appropriate stage. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/