IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2007 / 13TH ASHADHA 1929 RP.No. 583 of 2007(U) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.25375/2004 Dated 10/04/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:- --------------------------------------------------- MOHAN JAIDAS.S., NOW WORKING AS SENIOR MANAGER, KELTRON COMPONENT COMPLEX LTD., KELTRON NAGAR, P.O.KALLIASSERI, KANNUR - 670562. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN SMT.SREEJA SOHAN.K. RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS:- --------------------------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRONICS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KELTRON COMPONENT COMPLEX LTD., REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, KELTRON NAGAR, P.O.KALLIASSERI, KANNUR - 670 562. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. (...................2) -: 2 :- 5. MR. V.RAMKUMAR, NOW MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ELECTRONICS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, TRIVANDRUM-2. 6. MR. S.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLA, NOW MANAGING DIRECTOR-IN-CHARGE, KELTRON COMPONENT COMPLEX LTD., KELTRON NAGAR, P.O.KALLIASSERI. 7. THE DIRECTOR OF VIGILANCE, THE VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/07/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.No. 583 of 2007. in WP(C).No.25375 of 2004-U. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 4th day of July, 2007. O R D E R This review petition is filed seeking to review the judgment rendered on 10-4-2007. 2. Heard counsel on both sides. 3. The apprehension of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since it is recorded in the judgment that the contentions regarding the sufficiency of the charge, findings of the disciplinary and appellate authority and proportionality of the punishment have not been argued, his client will be prejudiced in re-agitating the matter. The apprehension is that it would be taken that these contentions have been given up. It is clarified that no such findings have been rendered in the judgment. The points argued before me have been dealt with in the judgment. I see no grounds to review the judgment. Hence this review petition is dismissed. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. Kvs/-