K.M. JESSI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as HSA in the 4th respondent's School on 19.06.1989 against a leave vacancy. She was thereafter appointed on a regular basis as HSA in the same School with effect from 04.06.1990. While working as HSA, the petitioner had availed leave for the period from 01.12.1996 to 30.11.2001. The said leave was sanctioned and, she proceeded on leave with effect from 01.12.1996. The petitioner did not, however, avail the entire period of the leave that she had applied for. She, therefore, rejoined duty on 20.08.1998. Simultaneously, she also represented before the Government for cancellation of the unavailed portion of the leave and permission to rejoin duty. The Government, however, passed an order cancelling the unavailed leave of the petitioner and permitting her to rejoin duty only on 23.01.2009, by Ext. P7 order. In the meanwhile, the petitioner after rejoining duty with effect from 20.08.1998, was promoted as HSST (Malayalam) on 26.08.1998. The said appointment as HSST was also approved by the authorities under the Kerala Education Rules. Thereafter, in 2008, while the petitioner was working as HSST (Malayalam), she applied for leave without allowance for the period from 20.06.2008 to 19.06.2013 for the purpose of joining her spouse who was residing abroad. The application of the petitioner for leave was routed through the 4th respondent Manager, and was forwarded by the 4th respondent Manager to the Regional Deputy Director of Higher Secondary Education as early as on 01.04.1998. The application was, therefore, sent well prior to the date on which the petitioner proceeded on leave. It would appear, however, that this application submitted by the petitioner was returned by the authorities as defective on account of an alleged mistake in an entry pertaining to the previous leave availed by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner caused a fresh application to be submitted before the authorities under the Kerala Education Rules. The revised application was dated 17.06.2008 and the Deputy Director of Higher Secondary Education forwarded the revised application to the Government on 18.06.2008. The petitioner, thereafter, on the belief that nothing further remained to be done from her side, proceeded on leave on 20.06.2008.

(2.) ON 10.07.2009, the petitioner was served with Ext. P2 memo, issued by the 4th respondent, proposing disciplinary proceedings against her for entering on leave without obtaining the formal sanction of the Government. While the petitioner preferred Ext. P3 reply to the said memo, the disciplinary proceedings contemplated by Ext. P2 memo did not proceed as envisaged, and by Ext. P4 communication dated 15.07.2009, the petitioner was informed that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against her had been finalised by issuing a warning to the petitioner against future lapses. In the meanwhile, the petitioner continued to pursue the matter with the respondent authorities for the purposes of getting the leave for the period from 20.06.2008 to 19.06.2013 sanctioned by the Government. No action was forthcoming from the Government in that matter. By Ext. P5 communication dated 16.07.2009, the 5th respondent Principal also recommended the petitioner's case before the Government and requested the Government to sanction the leave sought for by the petitioner. By Ext. P6 communication, the 4th respondent Manager is also seen to have recommended the case of the petitioner before the Government. Thereafter, Exts.P8 to P10 representations were preferred by the petitioner as well before the respondents, including the Government. In Exts.P8 to P10 representations, the petitioner made a plea before the Government to either sanction the leave that she had applied for or to cancel the remainder of the leave period so that she could rejoin duty. It is the case of the petitioner that even thereafter the Government continued to remain unresponsive to the representations of the petitioner.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent wherein it is stated that the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were recommended by the Government solely on account of the fact that the petitioner had chosen to proceed on leave even prior to the Government sanctioning the leave that she had applied for. The counter affidavit, however, is silent with regard to the steps that were taken by the Government, on the repeated requests of the petitioner to sanction the leave that she had applied for. A reference is however seen made in the counter affidavit to the alleged discrepancy that was noted by the respondents while returning the application for leave filed by the petitioner as defective. It is seen that the reasons shown for returning the application for leave submitted by the petitioner were the subject matter of Ext. P7 order that was subsequently issued by the Government on 23.01.2009.