IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2010 / 18TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 128 of 2010(M) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SANTHOSH M.THOMAS, (SUPDT (F/S) EMP NO.F-478), MENOTHUMALIL HOUSE, ASAMANNOOR (POST)- 683 549, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA. BY ADVS. MR.V.J.JOSEPH, SMT.M.V.LIGI. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA, CENTRAL HEAD QUARTERS ( C H Q), RAJIV GANDHI BHAVAN, SAFDAR JUNG AIR PORT, NEW DELHI, PIN CODE -110 003. 2. THE AIRPORTS DIRECTOR/DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, THE AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, TRIVANDRUM. 3. MEMBER PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATION, CENTRAL HEAD QUARTERS, (CHQ), RAJIV GANDHI BHAVAN, SAFDAR JUNG AIR PORT, NEW DELHI, PIN CODE- 110 003. R1 TO R3 BY MR. K.L. NARASIMHAN, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 128 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has been working as Superintendent in the Fire Services Station, Thiruvananthapuram International Airport, since 1995. According to the petitioner, he had applied for leave for a period of five years from 1.5.2008, and on the bonafide belief that leave would be granted, he had gone abroad. But, it appears that leave was not sanctioned and disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against him for continued absence. According to the petitioner, though he had expressed willingness to join duty at Thiruvananthapuram, the same was not being considered and the disciplinary proceedings against him are being proceeded with. 2. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already challenged the action against him by filing Ext.P14 appeal before the third respondent. However, no orders are passed thereon till date. At the same time, action was being taken against him for terminating him from service. According to the counsel for the Wpc 128/2010 2 petitioner, it is absolutely necessary that orders are issued directing an expeditious hearing and disposal of the appeal that is pending. 3. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to consider and dispose of the appeal of the petitioner evidenced herein by Ext.P14, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording a personal hearing to the petitioner also. Needless to say that further disciplinary action against the petitioner shall be continued only after final disposal of the appeal. All other contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition are left open. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk