IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 17TH MAY 2010 / 27TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 9756 of 2010(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- RAJAGOPAL, QUARTER NO.30/327, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SC-ST DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, THE SCHEDULED TRIBE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 9756 OF 2010 (T) ===================== Dated this the 17th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was a Lower Division Clerk in the Scheduled Tribe Department. Facts show that in November, 2001, petitioner applied for long leave for taking up employment abroad. That request was rejected by order dated 10/7/02. With effect from 20/7/2002, petitioner absented from duty. By Ext.P1 oder dated 5/11/2003, his services were terminated. This order discloses the steps taken by the Government for serving notice on the petitioner to which there was no response and the further action taken at their end. Long thereafter, by Ext.P3 dated 28/1/2009, a representation addressed to the Minister concerned was filed by the petitioner seeking cancellation of Ext.P1 and his reinstatement in service. That was rejected by Ext.P4 order dated 2/6/09. Again petitioner sought reconsideration of the matter by filing a representation and that was also rejected by Ext.P6. It was thereupon that this writ petition has been filed. 2. As already seen, this is a clear case of unauthorized absence, and it being a misconduct, from the facts as disclosed WPC No. 9756/10 :2 : from Ext.P1, the steps taken by the Government cannot be faulted. Even thereafter, Ext.P3 was filed by the petitioner almost after six years. Ext.P3 cannot be considered as an appeal, but was only a representation. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the plea that he was not heard before orders were passed. Petitioner also is not in a position to show me any Rule providing that Ext.P3 could not have been disposed of without a hearing. 3. In the circumstances, I find no merit in the objection raised by the petitioner that Ext.P3 was disposed of without hearing the petitioner. The representation resulting in Ext.P6 is also not a statutory one and therefore there is absolutely no substance in the contention that the said order was also passed without hearing him. Writ petition merits only dismissal and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp