(1.) The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.6439 of 2018 is in appeal, challenging judgment of the learned Single Judge, dated 12.04.2018. The writ petition was filed seeking to quash Ext.P9 proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent, whereby the petitioner was intimated about the decision taken by the 2nd respondent Corporation to reconsider its earlier proceedings in which the petitioner was granted leave without allowance for a period of three years for taking up employment in private sector. The appellant had also challenged the subsequent notice issued to him as per Ext.P11, whereby he was threatened with action of termination, based on the allegation that he had failed to rejoin duty in the Corporation, in compliance with Ext.P9 letter issued.
(2.) The learned Judge, after considering the factual circumstances and the rival pleadings, found that the appellant cannot as a matter of right claim that he should be allowed to remain on leave to work in private sector, while continuing as a member of the 2nd respondent Corporation. However, relief to the extent of granting two months' period to rejoin duty was allowed. It is aggrieved by the decision declining relief to the extent of quashing Ext.P9 and Ext.P11, the above appeal is preferred.
(3.) Contention raised is mainly that, the leave was sanctioned by the Corporation after obtaining permission from the State Government, as evidenced by Ext.P6. It is pointed out that, the Government had initially declined sanction for cancelling the leave, as is evidenced from Annexure II letter dated 03.04.2018. But subsequently the Government had changed its attitude and issued a cryptic order, dated 10.04.2018. It is argued that the said letter was issued without any proper reasoning and without considering the earlier proceedings. The Government had omitted to note that the leave was granted on genuine reasons and that there exists no change of circumstances to cancel it, is the contention.