High Court Kerala High Court

Chandradasan.C. vs The State Of Kerala on 10 August, 2007

Kerala High Court
Chandradasan.C. vs The State Of Kerala on 10 August, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 23139 of 2007(D)


1. CHANDRADASAN.C., AGED 48 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR,

3. THE SENIOR MANAGER, PERSONNEL,

4. TRANSFORMERS AND ELECTRICAL KERALA

5. T.P.GOVINDAN, MANAGER (PERSONNEL),

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY

                For Respondent  :SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI (SR.)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :10/08/2007

 O R D E R
                    ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                   ===============
                 W.P.(C) NO. 23139 OF 2007
               ====================

           Dated this the 10th day of August, 2007

                       J U D G M E N T

Petitioner was an Engineer in the service of the 4th

respondent Company. While so, petitioner applied for leave

without allowances for taking up employment abroad.

Without getting the leave sanctioned, he absented from

duty and eventually by Ext.P3 order dated 16th August 2006,

he was informed that his application cannot be entertained,

and was called upon to report for duty. Although the period

mentioned in Ext.P3 was extended, petitioner did not report

for duty and even now continue his employment abroad.

Finally, the petitioner has been charge sheeted as per

Ext.P5, to which he has submitted Ext.P6 reply. Ext.P6 has

been rejected by Ext.P7 and an Enquiry Officer has been

appointed for conducting enquiry against the petitioner. It

is at that stage seeking to quash Exhibits P3 and P5 and for

WPC 23139/07
: 2 :

directing the 2nd respondent to grant leave to the

petitioner, this writ petition is filed.

2. It is admitted case that the petitioner absented

from duty without getting the leave sanctioned and this

certainly discloses a misconduct in terms of the standing

orders. If that be so, disciplinary authority is justified in

proceeding with the disciplinary action. Petitioner has filed

his explanation and the Enquiry Officer having been

appointed, enquiry has to be completed.

3. I do not find anything illegal in Exts.P3 or P5

warranting interference. Petitioner has to answer the

charges and prove his innocence before the Enquiry Officer.

I do not find any merit in this writ petition and it is only

to be dismissed and I do so.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.

Rp