SUDEEP Vs. MALABAR CANCER CENTRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, working as an Engineer, holding the post of Head of the Department (Department of Engineering and Maintenance) with the 1st respondent herein, was appointed pursuant to Ext.P1 order dtd. 23/6/2009. The petitioner took charge with the 1st respondent herein on 11/7/2009. He has been continuing so till 2019, when pursuant to Ext.P3 order dtd. 19/11/2019 issued by the 2nd respondent, the control of the department headed by him was taken over by the Director of the 1st respondent. Thereafter, a show cause notice at Ext.P4 dtd. 23/11/2019, initiating disciplinary proceedings, was served on the petitioner, for which Ext.P5 reply dtd. 4/12/2019 has been submitted by the petitioner. Later, the department, which was being headed by the petitioner, was entrusted to the senior-most supervisor of the department with effect from 2/3/2020, followed with Ext.P9 memo of charges. The petitioner, having submitted Ext.P10 reply dtd. 24/3/2020, denying the allegations, the 1st respondent constituted an enquiry leading to Ext.P15 Domestic Enquiry Report dtd. 29/4/2023. In the meantime, the petitioner was suspended from service for a period of three months, as evidenced by Ext.P11 dtd. 28/3/2020, and later, pursuant to Ext.P17 dtd. 11/5/2023, issued by the 2nd respondent herein, the petitioner was dismissed from the service of the 1st respondent. It is seeking to challenge Ext.P17 issued as above, as well as the show cause notice at Ext.P4 and the Domestic Enquiry Report at Ext.P15, that the petitioner has instituted the captioned writ petition. The petitioner has also sought to challenge Ext.P3, by which he was removed from the charge of the department, as noticed earlier, as well as Ext.P11 order of suspension, referred to above.

(2.) I have heard Smt.Kavya Varma, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri.P.Sreekumar, learned Senior counsel, instructed by Ms.P.A.Helen, learned counsel for the respondents herein.

(3.) Sri.P.Sreekumar, learned Senior counsel for the respondents, would contend that the petitioner ought to have preferred an appeal with reference to the provisions of Rule 81 of Ext.P2 Service Rules, and insofar as the petitioner has not preferred an appeal as above, this writ petition is not maintainable. I have considered the afore preliminary objection raised by the respondents.