IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2010 / 31ST ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 22885 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SURESH.P., TRADESMAN (ELECTRONICS), VRINDAVANAM, CHAMPAKKARA P.O., KARUKACHAL, KOTTAYAM DT. BY ADV. SRI.THAMPAN THOMAS SRI.B.V.JOY SANKAR SMT.JANCY ALEX RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001 2. THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001 3. THE SENOIR JOINT DIRECTOR (E C S), OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001 4. THE PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT ENGINEERING COLLEGE, WAYANAD-673592 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.DILIP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.22885 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Tradesman (Electronics) working in Government Engineering College, Wayanad. He joined its service on 8.12.2004. Before declaration of his probation, he had availed Leave Without Allowance. The contention of the petitioner is that subsequently when he reported for rejoining duty, he was not permitted to rejoin duty and thereafter, action has been initiated against him for unauthorised absence. The petitioner is presently aggrieved by the proposed action on the part of the respondents in terminating his probation and to discharge him from service with effect from 5.1.2006 under Rule 19 of Part II KS & SSR. Ext.P9 is the show cause notice issued to the petitioner on the aforesaid grounds. As per the same, the petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation as to why his probation should not be terminated and he should not be discharged from service with effect from 5.1.2006. Ext.P9 is dated 2.6.2010. Prior to the issuance of the said show cause notice, hearing was conducted on 2.2.2010. The specific contention of the W.P.(C) NO.22885/2010 2 petitioner is that he has submitted Ext.P10 representation raising his grievances on 2.2.2010 itself. In fact, it was without considering the same that Ext.P9 was issued. Be that as it may, it is evident from Ext.P9 that it is only a show cause notice seeking the explanation of the petitioner as to why he should not be discharged with effect from 5.1.2006 after terminating his probation. In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to submit his explanation in response to Ext.P9 show cause notice within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It will be open to the petitioner to raise his contentions in the said reply to Ext.P9 show cause notice. In case the petitioner submits such a reply within the above stipulated time, the respondents shall consider the same as a reply submitted pursuant to Ext.P9 show cause notice and appropriate orders shall be passed thereon after considering such representation and also the contentions raised by the petitioner in Ext.P10. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.22885/2010 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C). NO. /2010 JUDGMENT June, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.22885/2010 4