IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2010 / 24TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18320 of 2010(L) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- A.MARY THOMAS, AGED 41 YEARS, W/O.N.J.THOMAS, P.D.TEACHER (TERMINATED FROM SERVICE) GOVERNMENT U.P.SCHOOL, BHEEMANAD, RESIDING AT KALLURUTHY HOUSE, PANDALLUR HILLS, PANDALLUR 676 521, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED, SRI.K.E.HAMZA. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. DILIP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P. (C) No. 18320 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T While working as a PD teacher in Government U.P. School, Beemanad, the petitioner had applied for leave without allowances for 118 days from 2.10.2004 to 27.1.2005. The contention of the petitioner is that on account of his health condition, he was compelled to take leave for three years from 2.10.2004 to 2.10.2007. In the meanwhile, Government returned the leave application with a direction to take disciplinary action against the petitioner. Pursuant to the said direction, the second respondent as per Ext.P2 terminated the service of the petitioner with effect from 2.10.2004. The contention of the petitioner is that he was terminated from service without conducting an enquiry as contemplated under the Kerala Civil Services(Classification, Control and Appeal)Rules, 1960. According to him, such an enquiry was bound to be conducted in terms of Appendix XII-C of Part I Kerala Service Rules before terminating his service. In short, according to the petitioner WPC.18320/2010 : 2 : Ext.P2 order is unsustainable. Raising such claims and contentions petitioner has preferred Ext.P3 appeal before the first respondent. The said appeal is still pending. Considering the fact that Ext.P3 appeal preferred against Ext.P2 is pending, without making any observation regarding the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 appeal, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Since the petitioner has a contention that the said disciplinary action was imposed on her without affording an opportunity of being heard, the petitioner shall also be afforded with an opportunity of being heard before passing orders on Ext.P3. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge