K MOIDU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner entered service as Warder in the department of Jail in the year 1990. But before completing probation he absented from duty from 01.01.1992 and left India for accepting employment abroad, without getting leave sanctioned by the Government. Disciplinary action was initiated against him and he was removed from service with effect from 01.01.1992. Later, on a representation made by the petitioner, the Government by Ext.P3 order reinstated him in service. By Ext.P3 order the period of unauthorized absence from 01.01.1992 to 21.02.2006 was regularized as 'non-duty' without forfeiture of past service. Subsequently taking into account his past service also petitioner's probation was declared. On finding that the reckoning of his past service between 15.06.1990 to 31.12.1991 for the purpose of declaration of probation was wrong, Ext.P5 order has been passed, wherein his date of declaration of probation was changed as 02.03.2008 instead of 09.08.2007. Petitioner filed an appeal before the Government. This court by Ext.P8 judgment directed the Government to consider the same. By Ext.P9 order the same was considered and Ext.P5 order was confirmed. Petitioner is challenging Exts.P5 & P9 orders in this writ petition. The contention of the petitioner is that since by Ext.P3 order, the period of absence was regularized as 'non- duty' without forfeiture of past service, the past service should also be reckoned for the purpose of declaration of probation.

(2.) I have considered the contentions of the petitioner as also those of the Government Pleader.

(3.) The period of probation stipulated by rules is two years within a continuous period of three years. Prior to his unauthorized absence, the petitioner did not even have two years continuous service. Therefore although he does not forfeit his past service, at some point of time he should complete the probation of two years within a continuous period of three years. Admittedly the declaration of probation from 09.08.2007 was not in accordance with that rule. That being so, I do not find anything wrong with the impugned orders. Therefore there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.