IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 16TH AUGUST 2010 / 25TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 24462 of 2010(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MOHAMED SALIM.P.K,S/O.P.ABDULLA KUTTY, P.K.HOUSE,KONDOTTY,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL SRI.B.JEEVAN (ALAPPUZHA) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-670001. 2. THE SECRETARY,GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 670001. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 670001. 4. THE PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT ENGINEERING COLLEGE,SREEKRISHNAPURAM, PALAKKAD- 679517. BY G.P.SRI.DILIP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.24462 of 2010 ---------------------------- Dated 16th August, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Computer Programmer in Government Engineering College, Sreekrishnapuram. He joined duty as Computer Programmer on 7.6.2004. On 23.6.2004 he submitted an application for leave without allowance under Appendix XII-A of the Kerala Service Rules for taking up employment abroad, for five years. The said application was allowed as per Ext.P1 and he was granted leave without allowance for five years from 6.7.2004. According to the petitioner, prior to the expiry of the leave granted as per Ext.P1, he submitted application for extension of the same, before the third respondent. However, the third respondent returned the application to the fourth respondent without forwarding the same to the competent authority, i.e., to the Government. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter the fourth respondent issued Ext.P4 memo intimating him that his application for extension of leave without allowance for five years from 7.7.2009 was rejected and requiring him to rejoin duty with effect from 7.7.2009. The petitioner contends that Ext.P4 communication was received by him only on 16.7.2009. On receipt of Ext.P4, instead of rejoining duty, the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 WP(C).No.24462/2010 2 requesting the third respondent to forward Ext.P2 to the Government for taking appropriate decision. While so, the third respondent issued Ext.P7 memo of charges for unauthorized absence from duty with effect from 7.7.2009. In response to Ext.P7 memo of charges, the petitioner submitted Ext.P8. As per Ext.P8, the petitioner requested the third respondent to cancel Ext.P7 memo of charges and to forward Ext.P2 application for extension of leave without allowance to the Government. Now, he has been issued with Ext.P9 order of suspension pending disciplinary action. It is in the said circumstances that this writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P9 order of suspension and for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the third respondent to forward Ext.P2 application for extension of leave without allowance to the Government. 2. It is obvious from the contentions raised by the petitioner that his main grievance is against Ext.P9 whereby he was placed under suspension for unauthorized absence. Going by the contentions of the petitioner himself, it is clear that despite the receipt of communications requiring him to rejoin duty, the petitioner is maintaining the stand that unless and until Government considers his request for extension of leave and passes orders thereon, he will not return to rejoin duty. Even in response to the memo of charges, WP(C).No.24462/2010 3 instead of explaining his position, the petitioner maintains the said stand. The present grievance of the petitioner, as already noticed hereinbefore, is against Ext.P9 order of suspension. It can only be an order passed under Rule 10 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules. Rule 22 therein provides for an appeal against such an order. Therefore, if the petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P9, there is a statutory remedy to prefer an appeal against Ext.P9. Since an alternative, efficacious remedy of appeal is available, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. It will be open to the petitioner to prefer an appeal against Ext.P9. The petitioner contends that it is the third respondent who returned the application to the fourth respondent, the Principal of the College. The learned Government Pleader submitted, based on instructions, that in Government Engineering College, Sreekrishnapuram five Lecturers have already availed leave without allowances for taking up employment abroad and it is taking into account the same that the fourth respondent while forwarding Ext.P2 application for extension of leave did not recommend for its extension. However, that cannot be a reason for withholding an application for extension of leave. In view of the above facts obtained in this case, the fourth respondent shall forward the application submitted by the petitioner WP(C).No.24462/2010 4 for extension of leave without allowances to the Government through proper channel. On receipt of the same, a decision shall be taken thereon. Subject to the same, this writ petition is disposed of. C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS