Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

CHANDRADASAN.C., AGED 48 YEARS versus THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


CHANDRADASAN.C., AGED 48 YEARS v. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE - WP(C) No. 23139 of 2007(D) [2007] RD-KL 15362 (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 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


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.