High Court Kerala High Court

Ali Pattakkal vs The Director on 6 December, 2010

Kerala High Court
Ali Pattakkal vs The Director on 6 December, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RP.No. 948 of 2010()


1. ALI PATTAKKAL, S/O.SHRI.P.MOHAMMED,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE DIRECTOR,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE CHAIRMAN,

3. THE UNION OF INDIA,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.G.KRISHNAKUMAR

                For Respondent  :SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :06/12/2010

 O R D E R
 C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ.
             ----------------------------------
       C.M.Appl.No.165 of 2010 in R.P.No.948 of 2010
                    in WP(C) No.5761 of 2004
         R.P.No.948 of 2010 in&    WP(C) No.5761 of 2004
             ---------------------------------
           Dated, this the 6th day of December, 2010

                            O R D E R

C.N.Ramachandran Nair, J.

This Revision Petition is filed with a long delay of 3 years.

While hearing the delay condonation petition, we have considered

the case on merit as well.

2. The Review Petitioner, while serving in the Vikram

Sarabhai Space Centre, contracted a second marriage without

divorcing first wife. When the Department initiated disciplinary

proceedings, he denied the charges, and therefore enquiry was

ordered. In the enquiry the 2nd wife gave evidence about the

petitioner’s marriage with her. Consequent upon the findings of

misconduct of second marriage while first marriage was subsisting,

the petitioner was imposed a punishment of compulsory retirement,

against which the petitioner filed an O.A. before the CAT, which

dismissed the O.A. Writ Petition filed challenging the order of the

C.M.Appl.No.165/2010 & R.P.No.948/2010 in WP(C) No.5761/2004
-2-

CAT was also dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court. This

review petition is now filed stating that the petitioner is in financial

difficulties. We do not think grounds raised are such as to justify

interference in the review petition. All the issues raised were

decided by the Division Bench on merits, and if the petitioner has

any grievance, his remedy is to approach the Supreme Court.

Therefore, there is no merit in the review petition as well.

Consequently, we dismiss the delay condonation petition as

well as the Review Petition.

(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)

(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)

jg