IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2011 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 15236 of 2011(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JITHENDRAN PANAPPUZHAKKARAN, ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KSEB (REMOVED FROM SERVICE) PANAPPUZHA HOUSE, VELLUR P.O., PAYYANNUR, KANNUR-670 307. BY ADV. DR.K.P.PRADEEP SRI.K.N.VIKRAMATHITHYAN PILLAI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN-695 001. 2. CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. 3. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (TRANSMISSION CIRCLE), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KANNUR VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, KANNUR-670 002. ADV.K.S.ANIL, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 15236/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.23.3.05 BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER, HRM, KSEB. P2. COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD.5.3.2010. P3. COPY OF THE REPLY DTD.24.5.2010 TO R3. P4. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.13.8.2010 FROM R3. P5. COPY OF THE REQUEST DTD.7.9.2010 BEFORE R2. P6. COPY OF THE REQUEST TO R3 DTD.7.9.2010. P7. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.18.10.2010 FROM R3. P8. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.26.10.2010 TO R2. P9. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.28.10.2010 FROM R3. P10. COPY OF THE REQUEST DTD.9.11.2010 TO THE CHAIRMAN, KSEB. P11. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.19.3.2011 BY R2. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 15236 of 2011 ================== Dated this the 17th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner, while working as an Assistant Engineer in the Kerala State Electricity Board, was granted leave without allowances for joining employment abroad and he joined the Sharjah Electricity and Water Authority. Leave without allowances granted to the petitioner was up to 6.4.2010 and on 5.3.2010 he submitted an application for extension of leave for a further period of five years. That request was rejected by Ext.P4 on 13.8.2010. In the meanwhile, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for unauthorised absence. The petitioner submitted Ext.P5 request seeking time to report for duty till November, 2010. Later, he submitted Ext.P10 request for extension of time for joining duty till December, 2011. However, by Ext.P11 order, the disciplinary proceedings were concluded by removing the petitioner from service with effect from 6.4.2010. The petitioner is challenging that order. According to the petitioner, the procedure prescribed for imposing punishment pursuant to disciplinary proceedings has not been complied with in the petitioner's case. 2. I have heard the learned standing counsel for the Electricity Board also. 3. It is not disputed before me that the leave without allowances granted to the petitioner has not been extended beyond w.p.c.15236/11 2 6.4.2010. It is also not disputed that the petitioner never joined duty on the expiry of the leave also. Despite non-extension of leave, the petitioner admittedly did not join duty and in fact sought time for joining duty till November, 2010, for which, there is no provision when leave has not been sanctioned. The petitioner was intimated about the rejection of his application for extension of the leave. As such, the petitioner cannot now validly contend that he was not on unauthorised absence. By Ext.P5, the petitioner sought time for extension of time for joining duty till November, 2010. In fact in Ext.P10, he again sought extension of time for reporting for duty till December, 2011. As such, admittedly, the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent and he had no intention to join duty within a reasonable time. To me, it appears that the petitioner is trying to have the best of both worlds, namely, to continue with the employment abroad and to keep the employment here, which he cannot have. He cannot have both. He has to choose one. Apparently he has chosen the former, neglecting the later. In the above circumstances, even assuming that there are some irregularities in the procedure prescribed, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioner, who is admittedly guilty of the misconduct charged against him. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.15236/11 3