1. The concepts of 'absenteeism', 'abscondment' and 'abandonment' in work place sometimes are subject to confusion among employers, which causes them to deal with specific instances, presenting one or the other of these, incorrectly. In modern labour law there is a distinction between each of these concepts. Absenteeism generally when an employee remains without reporting for duty unauthorisedly for short periods of time. Abscondment is often deemed when an employee is absent from work for a time that warrants an inference that he does not intend to return to work. Abandonment occurs when an employee has intimated, expressly or by implication, that he does not desire to report to work.

2. In all these three cases, there is one some form of absenteeism but in the case of abandonment, there are three elements which are generally present, namely that an employee is absent without employer's authority; that he has not been in contact with the employer for substantially large periods of time to explain why he is absent and his intention is never to report to work.

3. This writ petition is at the instance of an employee in the services of the Kerala State Electricity Board, who is alleged to have remained continuously absent from duty leading to his dismissal from service without an enquiry. The petitioner asserts that such termination without even an enquiry is illegal while the respondents maintain that no such enquiry is required since the petitioner is not merely absent for long periods but that he should be deemed to have abandoned his service. It is in such circumstance that this Court is now called upon to consider whether every case of long absenteeism would amount to abandonment of service or whether such a factum will require more substantiation to be offered by the employer relying either on the express or implied intent of the employee.

4. The petitioner impugns Exhibits P5 and P6 orders, issued by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority respectively of the Kerala State Electricity Board ('the Board' for short), as per which the petitioner has been removed from service on the allegation that he has been continuously and habitually absent from duty.

5. The petitioner says that he had originally applied for leave to take up a foreign employment and that his leave, in two spells, was sanctioned by the competent authorities of the Board until 19.10.2011. He says that even though he had applied for further extension of leave for one year and three months, the same was declined by the Board as per order dated 09.08.2012.

6. The petitioner, however, admits that he was unable to return to India even thereafter and while so, Exhibit P3 show cause notice was issued to him by the Chief Engineer (HRM), the third respondent herein, asking the petitioner to show cause why action should not be taken against him for unauthorised absence from duty. The petitioner immediately replied as per Exhibit P4 letter dated 18.04.013, issued from Qatar, requesting that he be given further extension of leave since he was not in a position to return to India on account of certain compelling employment obligations in Qatar. The respondents, however, did not accede to this and the third respondent issued Exhibit P5 order removing the petitioner from service in terms of the proposal contained in Exhibit P3 show cause notice.

7. The petitioner appears to have filed an appeal before the Statutory Appellate Authority who also confirmed Exhibit P3 through Exhibit P6 order, thus rejecting his appeal. The petitioner has filed this writ petition impugning Exhibits P5 and P6 orders on the ground that they were issued illegally and that the punishment of removal from serve imposed against him cannot stand legal scrutiny, since it was not preceded by a proper inquiry as was required under the Kerala State Electricity Board Employees' (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1969.

8. I have heard Sri. S. Mohammed Al Rafi, learned counsel