IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2009 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 16355 of 2009(L) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- ANWAR.A.P.,ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL),ELECTRICAL SECTION,TIRUR, (ON LEAVE WITHOUT ALLOWANCE). BY ADV. MR.P.C.SASIDHARAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE,TIRUR. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION,TIRUR. R1 TO R4 BY MR. K.S. ANIL, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P(C) No. 16355 of 2009-L ------------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of June, 2009. J U D G M E N T Heard Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.K.S.Anil, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner availed leave without allowances for a period of five years for taking up employment abroad with effect from 15.1.2003. Ext.P1, the order sanctioning leave, states that if the employee does not return to duty immediately on expiry of the leave sanctioned, his service will stand automatically terminated. The leave granted as per Ext.P1 expired on 9.7.2008. Shortly before the period of leave expired, the petitioner moved the second respondent seeking extension of the leave by a further period of five years from 10.7.2008. That request was rejected by the Chief Engineer and the decision was communicated to the petitioner by the Executive Engineer by Ext.P3 letter dated 1.9.2008. By Ext.P3, the petitioner was also called up to report for joining duty before the expiry of 30 days from the date of receipt of the said letter. He was also cautioned that if he fails to report for duty, disciplinary action will be initiated against him. Ext.P3 discloses that the said direction was issued in the light of Ext.P4 circular issued by the W.P(C) No. 16355 of 2009-L 2 second respondent Chief Engineer wherein it is stated that if an employee is unauthorisedly absent from duty after the expiry of leave without allowances sanctioned, show cause notice may be issued immediately on the next working day for the grave misconduct of unauthorised absence, proposing termination of his/her service as specified in the leave sanctioning order. Aggrieved by Ext.P3, the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 appeal dated 3.4.2009 before the Chief Engineer (HRM). The said appeal was returned by the Deputy Chief Engineer along with Ext.P6 letter stating that as the leave application has already been rejected by the Chief Engineer, an appeal would not lie to the Chief Engineer. Thereupon, Ext.P7 show cause notice dated 29.4.2009 was issued by the Deputy Chief Engineer calling upon the petitioner to show cause why his service should not be terminated. Ext.P3 letter sent by the Executive Engineer informing the petitioner that his application for extension of leave has been rejected, Ext.P6 letter returning the appeal filed therefrom and Ext.P7 show cause notice are under challenge in this writ petition. 3. Shorn off details what the petitioner seeks is extension of the leave without allowances granted to him by Ext.P1 order for a further period of five years. The petitioner availed the leave on 10.7.2003. The period of leave expired on 9.7.2008. He thereafter sought extension of leave by another period of five years with effect from 10.7.2008. That W.P(C) No. 16355 of 2009-L 3 application was rejected by the Chief Engineer and the decision was communicated to the petitioner by Ext.P3 letter dated 1.9.2008. Thereafter the petitioner moved the Chief Engineer in Ext.P5 appeal seeking extension of leave for a further period of five years contending that the experience which he will gain from foreign employment can be utilized in the service of the Board. The said request was not entertained and thereupon Ext.P7 show cause notice was issued calling upon the petitioner to show cause why his service should not be terminated as specified in the leave sanctioning order. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Deputy Chief Engineer has no right to return the original of Ext.P5 appeal and that he should have forwarded it to the Chief Engineer for appropriate action. In my opinion the said contention is without any merit. Ext.P3 discloses that the petitioner's application for extension of leave was rejected by the Chief Engineer relying on Ext.P4 circular. By Ext.P3, the decision of the Chief Engineer was communicated to the petitioner by the Executive Engineer. Since the request for extension of leave was rejected by the Chief Engineer, Ext.P5 appeal was returned on the ground that an appeal does not lie to the Chief Engineer. Further, as per Rule 65 of Part I of the KSR which applies to employees of the Kerala State Electricity Board also, leave cannot be claimed as a matter of right. When the exigencies of W.P(C) No. 16355 of 2009-L 4 public service so require, the discretion to refuse or revoke leave of any description is reserved with the authority empowered to grant it. In my opinion, this Court cannot compel the employer namely the Kerala State Electricity Board to grant leave to any of its employees. The petitioner who was bound by Ext.P1 had a duty to report for duty on the expiry of the leave originally granted. The petitioner did not do so. Instead he asked for extension of leave and that was rejected as early as on 31.7.2008. Even thereafter the petitioner did not rejoin duty. He was more interested in continuing in employment abroad. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the employer was not justified in initiating disciplinary action. The petitioner who is an Engineer by profession and an employee of the Board cannot in my opinion contend that he is entitled to extension of leave as a matter of right. The employer has in my opinion the absolute discretion to grant or refuse leave for taking up employment abroad. I accordingly hold that there is no merit in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. It will open to the petitioner to defend the disciplinary action initiated against him by raising all available contentions. Sd/- P.N.RAVINDRAN ab JUDGE //True Copy//