IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 28761 of 2009(M)
1. KABEER.P.S., S/O.SAIDUL MOHAMMED,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE OFFG COMMANDANT
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.BIJU M.JOHN
For Respondent :SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.SOLICITOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :30/10/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
...........................................
W.P.(C).No.28761 OF 2009
.............................................
Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner was working as a Constable under the
respondent. It is stated that while working as a Constable,
he took 15days leave from 6.6.2006 to 20.6.2006 and leave
was granted with a direction to report on expiry of leave to
BSF Transit Camp, Jammu. According to the petitioner, he
could not return and join duty since his brother was
undergoing treatment for mental disease. He also has a case
that he himself was undergoing Jaundice and was advised to
take rest for 16 days.
2. Though these are the justifications now offered,
petitioner does not have a case that he applied for extension
of the leave or produced medical records either of himself
or his brother. Finally he was issued Ext.P1 show cause
notice dated 10.1.2007 stating that it is proposed to remove
or dismiss him from service and he was called upon to show
cause against such proposal. He gave Ext.P2 reply stating
about his brother’s illness and his own illness. Ext.P3 is the
: 2 :
W.P.(C).No.28761 OF 2009
medical certificate concerning his brother and Ext.P4 is the
medical certificate concerning himself. Insofar as Ext.P4
is concerned, the doctor has recommended absence from
duty for 60 days from 30.1.2007. Finally, by Ext.P5 dated
16.2.2007, petitioner was dismissed from service. It is
challenging this order, the writ petition is filed.
3. First of all, this writ petition is highly belated. No
explanation what so ever is forthcoming for the delay of
almost 3 years in challenging Ext.P4. That apart, admittedly
misconduct of unauthorised absence from duty has been
committed and if that be so, the petitioner was liable to
have been proceeded against. It was accordingly that
disciplinary proceedings were initiated and conclusion
thereof, if the disciplinary authority has imposed a
punishment of dismissal, this Court will not be justified in
taking a view that the misconduct was not a grave one
warranting such punishment.
I am not satisfied that the petitioner has not made
out a case for interference.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.
cl
: 3 :
W.P.(C).No.28761 OF 2009
: 4 :
W.P.(C).No.28761 OF 2009