JUDGMENT : ANU SIVARAMAN, J. 1. The challenge in this writ petition is against Exts. P22 and P23 orders issued by the Government. It is submitted that the petitioner, who was working as Teacher in N.S.S. College of Engineering, Palakkad had been granted sanction for deputation as Principal in the Sree Chithira Thirunal College of Engineering for the period from 8.8.2005 to 7.8.2006 by Ext.P6 order. Though the petitioner had requested for extension of deputation, the same was not granted and by Ext.P16 order, the petitioner was required to rejoin duty in the N.S.S. College, Palakkad. Petitioner complied with Ext.P16 order and rejoined duty. 2. By Ext.P21 order dated 11.2.2008, the Government issued sanction to regularise the period from 1.6.2005 to 27.4.2007, including period of deputation as non duty without forfeiture of past service. After rejoining duty, petitioner again sought leave without allowance for a period of five years from 25.8.2007 to 3.3.2011. Ext.P19 is the application. However, no orders were passed thereon. By Ext.P22 order dated 12.2.2008, the Government found that the petitioner cannot be permitted to accept appointment as Principal in SCTCE on deputation. The Government therefore ordered cancellation of Ext.P6 Government order sanctioning the deputation from 8.8.2005 to 7.8.2006. Further, by Ext.P23 order dated 26.4.2008, the Principal of N.S.S. College was directed to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner for entering on leave before getting the concurrence of the Government. These orders are under challenge. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent as well as the learned Government Pleader. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner had proceeded on deputation on the strength of Ext.P6 order and has acted as Principal from 8.8.2005 to 7.8.2006. It is further submitted that after rejoining duty as directed by the Government in Ext.P16 order dated 17.4.2007, he had made Ext.P19 application before the Government for leave without allowance from 25.8.2007 to 3.3.2011. The said application dated 9.7.2007 is said to be still pending with the Government, since no orders had been passed thereon. In the case of similarly situated teachers in the third respondent College itself, leave without allowance had been granted by the Government on various occasions. Petitioner relies on Ext.P4 which is a list of teachers in the third respondent College, who had been granted sanction for leave without allowance. In the case of similarly situated teachers in the third respondent College itself, leave without allowance had been granted by the Government on various occasions. Petitioner relies on Ext.P4 which is a list of teachers in the third respondent College, who had been granted sanction for leave without allowance. It is argued that the directions issued in Ext.P22 to cancel the earlier deputation granted by Ext.P6 order from 8.8.2005 to 7.8.2006 as well as the orders directing initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner on the ground that he had proceeded on leave without awaiting for order of sanction, were unjustifiable. 5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Government was completely unjustified in cancelling the earlier period of deputation which had already been sanctioned by Ext.P6, since no grounds are available in Ext.P22 order for cancelling such deputation already availed of by the petitioner. As regards Ext.P23, it is submitted that Ext.P19 is still pending before the Government without orders and in view of Ext.P24 list, it is submitted that there is no justification for denying leave without allowance prayed for by the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the third respondent would submit that Ext.P23 has been issued by the Government to the Director of Technical Education directing the Principal to take disciplinary action against the petitioner. It is submitted that the Principal is not the disciplinary authority to take action against the petitioner and therefore no steps had been taken pursuant to Ext.P23. 7. Counter affidavits had been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 wherein, it is contended that the disciplinary action was directed to be initiated against the petitioner for having entered on leave before getting Government concurrence. It is further stated that the Government by Ext.P22 order, had cancelled the deputation already sanctioned to the petitioner in 2005 as he had entered leave without allowance in continuation of deputation without getting Government concurrence. It is also stated that several teachers in the third respondent's College had been sanctioned leave without allowance and extensions of leave without allowance, since they were not facing any disciplinary action. It is stated that the reason for not granting the leave without allowance to the petitioner is that he was facing the disciplinary action. 8. I have considered the contentions advanced. It is stated that the reason for not granting the leave without allowance to the petitioner is that he was facing the disciplinary action. 8. I have considered the contentions advanced. The petitioner had been sanctioned deputation for taking up the posting as Principal by Ext.P6 order dated 8.8.2005. The period of deputation was from 8.8.2005 to 7.8.2006. Though the petitioner had sought extension of the deputation, the same was not granted and by Ext.P16 order, he was directed to rejoin duty. He had complied with Ext.P16 order and had rejoined duty. Thereafter, the period from 1.6.2005 to 27.4.2007 had been regularised as leave without allowance without forfeiture of past service. The period of service of the petitioner till 27.4.2007, when he rejoined the duty at N.S.S. College of Engineering, Palakkad stood regularised by Ext.P20 proceedings. No reason has been brought to my notice which enabled the Government to reopen the orders already issued in that regard and to cancel the deputation granted to the petitioner with effect from 8.8.2005. The Government in Ext.P22, proceeds on the basis that the petitioner had proceeded on leave without awaiting orders of sanction. The period of leave made mention of in Ext.P22 is from 25.8.2007, as has been applied for in Ext.P19. The fact that the petitioner proceeded on leave from 25.8.2007 without awaiting orders of sanction cannot be a ground to cancel the orders of deputation granted earlier with effect from 8.8.2005. In the above view of the matter, I am of the view that Ext.P22 cannot be sustained and the same is therefore set aside. 9. As regards the direction to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner, I am of the view that since Ext.P19 application was pending before the Government and since no orders were passed thereon, the direction to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner, would be dependant on the orders to be passed by the Government on the application for leave preferred by the petitioner. Petitioner would specifically contend that leave without allowance had been granted to several teachers of the third respondent College itself by the Government. This is a matter for the Government to consider. 10. In the above view of the matter, the Government is directed to take up and pass orders on Ext.P19 application for leave taking note of Ext.P24 list as well. This is a matter for the Government to consider. 10. In the above view of the matter, the Government is directed to take up and pass orders on Ext.P19 application for leave taking note of Ext.P24 list as well. To enable such consideration at the hands of the Government, Ext.P23 is also quashed. Since the petitioner had rejoined duty pursuant to Ext.P23 in the N.S.S. College, Palakkad, the leave requested for by the petitioner in Ext.P19 will be considered only from 25.8.2008 to the date on which the petitioner rejoined duty. The first respondent is directed to pass orders on the request of the petitioner made in Ext.P19 limiting the leave to the date on which the petitioner rejoined duty. Orders in this regard shall be passed by the first respondent taking note of Ext.P24, without reference to any disciplinary action directed against the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner also. This writ petition is disposed of as above.