IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2009 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 OP.No. 28978 of 2000(Y) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- A.P.SAIDALAVI, ATHIPARAMBU BUSHARA MANZIL, KIZHAKKUMBADU, MANNAR P.O., CALICUT. BY ADV. MR.M.RAJASEKHARAN NAYAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STEEL INDUSTRIALS KERALA LTD., P.B.NO.1304, BAYPORE, REP. BY THE SENIOR MANAGER. 2. THE SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY MR.B.S.KRISHNAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE, BY ADV.MR.K.ANAND (A.201), SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss O.P.NO.28978/2000 Y APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.SB:01:40:92/419 DTD. 19/03/92 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P2: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.SB:01:40:92/677 DTD. 18/05/92 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P3: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.SB:01:40:92:980 DTD. 8/09/97 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P4: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.SILK/FB/(83)/ DTD. 28/07/97 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P5: COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET NO.SB:01:40:98/467 DTD. 28/03/98 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P6: COPY OF THE LETTER 23/01/1999 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P7: COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT BY THE ENQUIRY OFFICER DTD. 7/12/98. P8: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.SB:01:40:99/200 DTD. 27/02/1999 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P9: COPY of the ORDER G.O.(RT) NO.484/2000/ID DTD. 24/04/2000 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT: EXT.R1(A): COPY OF APPLICATION FOR GRATUITY. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S. SIRI JAGAN, J ................................................ O.P. No. 28978 of 2000 ................................................. Dated this the 4th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was an employee of the 1st respondent company. He applied for leave without allowances for accepting employment abroad, which was initially granted by Ext.P1 order for a period of three years with effect from 23.3.1992. The petitioner requested for extension of leave which was granted by Ext.P3 up to January 1998. But before granting extension of leave, by Ext.P4 dated 28.7.1997, the petitioner was directed to show cause why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against him for unauthorised absence without leave. Since even after the period of extension of leave, by Ext.P3, was over, the petitioner did not join duty, Ext.P5 charge memo dated 28.3.1998 was issued to the petitioner and an enquiry was ordered, in which a representative of the petitioner participated. By Ext.P7 order, the enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of the misconduct of the unauthorised absence without leave. Pursuant thereto, by Ext.P8 order dated 27.2.1999, the services of the petitioner were terminated with effect from 27.2.1999. O.P. No. 28978 of 2000 -2- The petitioner is challenging the said order in this original petition filed on 13.10.2000. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed in which the 1st respondent seeks to sustain the impugned order. In the same, the 1st respondent has taken a contention that the original petition is bad for unexplained delay and laches, insofar as Ext.P8 order dated 27.2.1999 is challenged by the petitioner only on 13.10.2000. 3. The petitioner would try to explain the delay by stating that the petitioner was abroad and he came back to India only in August, 2000 and thereafter he challenged the termination order. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. The undisputed fact is that the petitioner was sanctioned leave only upto January, 1998. Despite the same, he did not take any steps to rejoin duty after the expiry of the leave. Even after charge memo was issued to the petitioner, he did not find it necessary to come and join duty. On the other hand, he chose to contest the charges against him through a representative of his. He admits that he came back to India only in 2000. Therefore, it O.P. No. 28978 of 2000 -3- is very evident that the petitioner did not intend to rejoin duty after the expiry of leave. He as very much aware of the order of termination from the service dated 27.2.1999. His only explanation is that he challenged the order after he came back to India in August 2000. Since the petitioner had no intention to rejoin duty and he had not challenged the order of termination within a reasonable time. I am of opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs // True copy // PA to Judge