IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2009 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15276 of 2009(D) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ M.ABDUL RAHIM, AGED 48 YEARS, (EX.P.C.4330), MELETHEKKADA PUTHEN VEEDU, THEKKADA, VEMBAYAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.M.TRIPTEN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME AND VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. UNDER SECRETARY, HOME AND VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, D.G.P. OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, STATE CRIME RECORDS BUREAU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.15276 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated 3rd June, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is an Ex-Police Constable. After entering service, he availed leave without allowances initially for a period of five years to take up employment abroad. The leave applied for was extended on three occasions. As per the rules, the maximum period of leave without allowances that can be granted to a Government servant is 20 years. The Government granted the petitioner the maximum permissible period of leave without allowances to take up employment abroad. The period of leave expired on 3.5.2006 and the petitioner had to rejoin duty on 4.5.2006. He did not however rejoin duty. Thereupon disciplinary action was initiated against him and by Ext.P1 order passed on 25.4.2007, he was removed from service with effect from 4.5.2006. Though the petitioner challenged Ext.P1 order in appeal before the Government, that appeal was rejected by Ext.P3. In this writ petition the petitioner challenges Exts.P1 and P3 and seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate him in service . WP(C).No.15276/2009 2 2. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Exts.P1 and P3 disclose that the petitioner did not rejoin duty on the expiry of the maximum permissible period of leave which expired on 3.5.2006. As a Government servant, the petitioner ought to have rejoined duty on the expiry of the maximum permissible period of leave. The rules governing the grant of leave stipulate that if the Government servant overstays the leave granted, his service is liable to be terminated following the prescribed procedure. In the instant case, following the prescribed procedure the petitioner was removed from service. The petitioner has no case that he was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to state his case, before the impugned orders were passed. On going through the pleadings and after hearing the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has not made out any ground warranting interference with Exts.P1 and P3. It is conceded that even today the petitioner is employed abroad. That shows that the petitioner did not report for duty on the expiry of the leave. I am therefore persuaded to hold that there is no merit in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge TKS