IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 27TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 4918 of 2009(S) ------------------------- OA.653/2007 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF SPACE, ANTARIKSH BHAVAN, NEW BEL ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 231 2. CHAIRMAN, INDIAN SPACE RESEARCH ORGANISATION, BANGALORE. 3. DIRECTOR, VIKRAM SARABHAI SPACE CENTRE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. HEAD, HTR, VIKRAM SARABHAI SPACE CENTRE, ISRO POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.TPM.IBRAHIM KHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- DR.V.R.SANAL KUMAR, VALSALYAM, AYROOR NORTH P.O., THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, KERALA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.4918 OF 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioners are the respondents in O.A.No.653/2007. The respondents herein was the applicant. The applicant was a Scientist in the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre, Trivandrum. Without the permission of the competent authority, he left India and joined a University in South Korea for doing a research program. He was suspended from service and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. While so, it was decided to terminate him from service without holding any enquiry invoking the power under Rule 16(iii) of the Department of Space Employees' (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1976, which provides that where the President is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold any enquiry in the manner provided in this Rule, the disciplinary authority may consider the circumstances of the case and make such orders thereon as it deems fit. Invoking the said power, the enquiry was dispensed with and by order dated 11.8.2007, he was dismissed from W.P.(C) No.4918/2009 2 service with effect from 1.9.2003. There was also a direction to recover the subsistence allowance already paid to him between 1.9.2003 and 11.8.2007. The respondent/applicant challenged the said order before the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.653/2007. 2. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, upheld the dismissal from service. But, the retrospectivity given to that order was set aside. The respondents feeling aggrieved by the said relief granted, this writ petition is filed. The said relief was granted by the C.A.T relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Jeevarathnam v. State of Madras [1966(2) SCR 2004] and Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation v. P.H.Brahmbhat [1974 (3) SCC 60]. The said point is covered by several decisions of this Court also. So, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the C.A.T. to the extent it is challenged herein. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE) ps