IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 4675 of 2006(F)
1. MATHEW PAUL, AGED 53 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.ASHOKAN
For Respondent :SRI.M.A.MANHU, SC, SIDCO
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN
Dated :05/08/2009
O R D E R
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
----------------------------------------
WPC. No.4675 of 2006
----------------------------------------
Dated, the 5th day of August, 2009
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who was working as Senior Accountant in
the Ist respondent corporation, had applied for Leave without
allowance for a period of 5 years to take up employment in
U.S.A. The said request was rejected on 13.1.2001 and
therefore he applied for eligible leave. According to the petitioner,
the said application was neither rejected nor sanctioned. The
petitioner left India on 13.3.2001. In the meanwhile, show cause
notice was issued to him which ultimately culminated in Ext.P18 by
which the petitioner’s service was terminated on the ground of
unauthorised absence. Thus, the petitioner challenged Ext.P18
order in this writ petition.
2. A statement has been filed for and on behalf of the Ist
respondent. Along with the statement the Ist respondent has
produced certain documents on the basis of which it is stated that
the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent against which action
was taken which culminated in Ext.P18 order.
3. I have gone through the contentions and the averments
taken in the writ petition and also perused the materials on record.
WPC 4675/06
-:2:-
It is beyond dispute that the petitioner had applied for leave without
allowance for 5 years from 1.2.2001 to 31.1.2006 to go abroad, as
per his leave application dated 9.1.2001. The first respondent
Corporation as per its letter dated 30.1.2001 rejected that request,
especially, when the corporation was facing with acute shortage of
staff. Subsequently, the petitioner requested to permit him to avail
the eligible leave for 8 months and he had also informed the
corporation that due to the circumstances mentioned in the letter, he
was constrained to leave India on 13.3.2001 on the presumption
that his leave would be granted in due course. From the above, it is
clear that the petitioner left India without getting sanction from the
authorities and without getting the leave duly sanctioned. Such
action of the petitioner is a grave misconduct and as per the
Government Circular 10432/BPE-1/95/Plg dt. 20.1.96, persons who
absent themselves without getting the leave duly sanctioned
should be treated as on unauthorized absence and action should be
taken to terminate their service. Therefore, proceedings was
initiated and issued show cause notice dated 31.5.2001. As per the
explanation dated 1.7.2001, the petitioner submitted that he left
the country under the presumption that his leave would be granted in
due course, but according to the corporation, the said explanation
WPC 4675/06
-:3:-
was not satisfactory. In the meanwhile, the government called for a
report as per its letter dated 4.8.2001 on the basis of a
representation from the petitioner requesting him to grant 5 years
leave without allowance. Accordingly, the Corporation sent report
to the Government. The Government was also not prepared to
entertain the request. Therefore, the petitioner applied for voluntary
retirement with effect from 1.2.2001. The Government was not
prepared to accept that request also and directed the Corporation to
initiate action against him to terminate his service. Thus, on the
basis of the instruction of the government, the corporation issued
notice dated 19.12.2002 to the petitioner to show cause why his
service in the corporation should not be terminated with effect from
13.3.2001. Thereafter, the petitioner filed representation before the
Minister for Industries, Government of Kerala, with a request to
direct the corporation to drop the proposed action. The
Government, vide letter No. 4285/F2/ID dt. 5.11.2004 directed the
Corporation to terminate the service of the petitioner as per direction
in Government letter No.37957/F2/01/ID dt. 15.11.2002. Thereafter,
again a registered notice dated 23.12.2005 was issued to the
petitioner by registered post giving him one month’s time to furnish
written explanation on the decision of SIDCO to terminate his
WPC 4675/06
-:4:-
service. As the explanation received from the petitioner was found
not satisfactory, and on the basis of letter issued by the
Government, SIDCO issued order terminating the service of the
petitioner with effect from 13.3.2001 for unauthorised absence.
4. From the facts mentioned above, it is beyond dispute that
rather the petitioner admits that he had gone abroad without the
permission of the Authority concerned and without getting leave as
requested by him. Thus, though notice was issued including show
cause notice calling for explanation for the unauthorized absence, no
explanation was offered, whereas, it appears that though such
charges were admitted, an attempt was made to justify the
unauthorized absence as an authorized one and made a
representation to the Hon’ble Minister for Industries to direct the
SIDCO to drop action against him. No materials were furnished
and no case is made out to interfere with Ext.P18 order.
In the result, there is no merit in the writ petition and
accordingly, the same is dismissed.
V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE
kvm/-
WPC 4675/06
-:5:-
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
O.P.No.
JUDGMENT
Dated:..