IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 12TH DECEMBER 2011 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA 1933 WA.No. 2088 of 2010 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.23507/2010 DATED 12/18/2010 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------- G. ASOK KUMAR, SUB ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KUTHIATHODU, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JAYACHANDRAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004. 2. CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004. 3. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ERNAKULAM - 682 018. 4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, MATTANCHERRY - 682 002. R1 & R4 BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A. No. 2088 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J. The unsuccessful writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge was the appellant herein, seeking for interference of punishment of withholding one increment with cumulative effect imposed by the disciplinary authority in the departmental enquiry. 2. The main contention of the appellant seems to be that in spite of medical certificate regarding his ailment was given to the explanation offered by him to the show cause notice, which persuaded the disciplinary authority to take a lenient view of imposing a minor penalty as stated above, ought to have dropped the proceedings or at the most a simple warning was warranted and not the present minor penalty. 3. It is not in dispute that the unauthorised absence of the appellant was the cause for initiation of disciplinary action. It is also not in dispute that as per the service regulations of the respondent Board, whenever a person proceeds on leave on W.A. No. 2088 of 2010 -:2:- medical grounds, he has to support the leave application with a medical certificate. Obviously, such procedure was not adopted by the appellant herein. Only when show cause notice was issued to him why disciplinary action should not be taken against him, he came up with medical certificate. Apparently, in the departmental enquiry, the authorities have taken into consideration the medical certificate while considering the imposition of punishment regarding his unauthorised absence. We are of the opinion, the disciplinary authority has taken into consideration all the facts and circumstances relevant for the purpose of considering the action against the appellant and we find nothing forthcoming to interfere with the orders of the learned Single Judge who affirmed the action taken by the disciplinary authority. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. Manjula Chellur, Ag. Chief Justice. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb