IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In a matter of an application for Writs of Certiorari and Mandamus, under and in terms of Article 140 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

Court of Appeal Case No.

CA/WRT/0056/2025 Samarakoon Mudiyanselage Chaminda Prasad Samarakoon, 20A/1, Pilawala, Gunnepana, Kandy.

Petitioner Vs.

1. Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, No. 609, Dr. Danister De Silva Mawatha, Colombo 09.

2. D.J.A.S.De S Rajakaruna, Chairman, Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, No. 609, Dr. Danister De Silva Mawatha, Colombo 09.

3. Dr. Mayura Neththikumarage, Managing Director, Ceylon Petroleum Corporation No. 609, Dr. Danister De Silva Mawatha, Colombo 09.

4. Honorable Attorney General, Attorney General's Department, Colombo 12.

Respondents Before: M. T. MOHAMMED LAFFAR, J (ACT.P/CA).

K. M. S. DISSANAYAKE, J.

Counsel: Mohamed Adamaly, P.C. with Ms. Kathya Seneviratne instructed by Ms. Shanya Wickramarathne for the Petitioner.

Rajika Aluwihare, S.C. instructed by Kumudu Ariyarathna for the

1st to 4th Respondents.

Supported on : 19.02.2025 Written Submissions of the Petitioner tendered on : 21.03.2025 Written Submissions of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents tendered on : 25.03.2025 Decided on : 16.05.2025 K. M. S. DISSANAYAKE, J.

This is an application by the Petitioner under Article 140 of the Constitution for a mandate in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to quash the decision of the 1st and/or 2nd and/or 3rd Respondents to interdict the Petitioner with half pay, as contained in the letter marked P19, and/or to quash the letter itself in its entirety; and for a mandate in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st and/or 2nd and/or 3rd Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner in employment in the marketing function in the same grade and post, and/or to reinstate the payment to the Petitioner of his full monthly salary and emoluments until conclusion of the disciplinary process.

The Petitioner had in his initial motion dated, 29.01.2025 filed in this Court at the time of the institution of the instant application, urged that this matter be listed for support of the application for notice, as well as the application for interim relief sought in his petition dated 29.01.2025 on any of the 3 days stated therein, namely; 05.02.2025, 06.02.2025, 10.02.2025 and stated that, direct notices would be served by the Petitioner on the 1st to 4th Respondents by registered post and proofs thereof would be furnished to Court by way of a motion.

However, the Petitioner in his subsequent motion dated 31.01.2025 which was received by Court Registry on the very same day on 31.01.2025 at 9:25 AM as evident from the Court frank affixed thereon, had urged that, this matter be listed for support of the application for notice, as well as the application for interim relief sought in the petition dated 29.01.2025 on the very same day on

31.01.2025.

When this matter came on before us on 31.01.2025 in pursuant to the motion so filed in this Court by the Petitioner, none of the Respondents were present in Court nor represented, and learned President’s Counsel for the Petitioner had informed Court that, he had given notices of this application to the Respondents informing them that, this matter will be coming up for support of the application for notice, as well as the application for interim relief sought in the petition dated 29.01.2025 and brought to the notice of the Court that any of the Respondents were nevertheless, not present in Court nor represented in Court, and therefore, moved to support both the applications for notice as well as for interim relief sought against the 1st to 3rd Respondents.

In the circumstances, this Court had having heard the learned President’s Counsel for the Petitioner on the application for notice as well as for interim order, made order issuing notices on the 1st to 4th Respondents together with an interim relief as prayed for in prayer ‘b’ of the said petition of the Pet