The High Court set aside communications rejecting the petitioner's representation and directed the second respondent to consider it afresh within three months, relying on specific Supreme Court precedents.
Set aside Ext.P4 and P6; direct second respondent to consider Ext.P2 representation afresh within three months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P(C).4984/2018
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 15TH BHADRA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 4984 OF 2018
PETITIONER/S:
TOM MATHEW, EX-CONSTABLE (BSF) NO.87700811 RESIDING AT THAYIL HOUSE, KUMAROKOM SOUTH P.O., KOTTAYAM, KERALA STATE - 686 563
BY ADVS. SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI SMT.SABINA JAYAN DR.SHERINE JOSEPH
RESPONDENT/S:
BY ADV SMT.O.M.SHALINA, CGC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(C).4984/2018
2
JUDGMENT
Petitioner had availed leave to attend mother who was ailing. However, in the meanwhile, she died and petitioner continued to be absent. Hence, he was declared as an unauthorized absentee and was removed from service. Petitioner filed Ext.P2 representation before the second respondent. By Exts.P4 and P6 communications, he was informed that his representation stood rejected. The grievance of the petitioner is that, the above representation was dismissed without having regard to the law applicable to the parties.
Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS
JUDGE
Sbna/
W.P(C).4984/2018
3
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4984/2018
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
| EXHIBIT | P1: TRUE COPY 2015 SUBMIT INSPECTOR G |
OF TH ED B ENERA |
E REP Y THE L BSF. |
RESENTATION DATED JULY PETITIONER BEFORE THE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EXHIBIT | P2: TRUE COPY 24.09.2015 BEFORE THE |
OF SUB 2ND R |
THE MITTED ESPOND |
REPRESENTATION DATED BY THE PETITIONER ENT. |
| EXHIBIT | P3: TRUE COPY 17.10.2016 |
OF FROM |
THE THE RE |
COMMUNICATION DATED SPONDENT |
| EXHIBIT | P4: TRUE COPY 23.02.2017 |
OF FROM |
THE THE 4T |
COMMUNICATION DATED H RESPONDENT |
| EXHIBIT | P5: TRUE COPY 15.03.2017 BEFORE THE |
OF SUBM 4TH R |
THE ITTED ESPOND |
REPRESENTATION DATED BY THE APPLICATION ENT. |
| EXHIBIT | P6: TRUE COPY 07.04.2017 PETITIONER. |
OF FROM |
THE THE |
COMMUNICATION DATED 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE |
| EXHIBIT | P7: TRUE COPY 02.08.2017 BEFORE THE |
OF SUBM 2ND R |
THE ITTED ESPOND |
REPRESENTATION DATED BY THE APPLICATION ENT. |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the representation filed by the petitioner was dismissed without having regard to the applicable law.
Whether the impugned communications rejecting the representation shall be set aside and the matter directed to be considered afresh.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mahinder Dutt Sharma v Union of IndiaRelied on¶2
Mahinder Dutt Sharma v. Union of India [(2014) 11 SCC 684] · Who else cites this
Thankappan Nair v State of KeralaRelied on¶2
Thankappan Nair v. State of Kerala [2001(3) KLT 855]
2 provisions across 2 enactments
TOM MATHEW
THE UNION OF INDIA
THE DIRECTOR GENERAL BORDER SECURITY FORCE
THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL SHQ BSF, ABOHAR
THE COMMANDANT HEAD QUARTERS, 90 BN BSF, ABOHAR
SUNIL THOMAS
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
