IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2010 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 13059 of 2010(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SANTHOSH.C., S/O. KRISHNAN, CHORAN HOUSE, KEEZHURKUNNU, P.O.KEEZHUR, KANNUR DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN-670703. BY ADV. SMT.SAJITHA.S.DHARAN SMT.RADHIKA P.GOPINATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, NEW DELHI. 2. RAMAN SREE VASTAVA (D.G.) BSF BLOCK-16, C.G.O. COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI. 3. COMMANDANT, 106 BSF, BATTALION, DIGBARIA CAMP, MADHYAM GRAMAM, CALCUTTA. ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).13059/2010 -------------------- Dated this the 24th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT By Ext.P1 dated 23.4.2004, petitioner, a BSF constable was dismissed in pursuance to Ext.P2 memo of charges. Subsequently he sought reinstatement in service by filing Ext.P5 representation dated 25.1.2010 on the ground that he was subsequently acquitted from the criminal cases. The acquittal was subsequent to his dismissal from service. Claim was that the petitioner suppressed the pendency of criminal case. Petitioner has no case that he had disclosed details regarding the pendency of the case to the authorities. If so, misconduct is established and the subsequent acquittal, even if true, is inconsequential. 2. In my view, the claim made by the petitioner is highly belated and at this distance of time, challenge against Ext.P1 dated 23.4.2004 cannot be entertained. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs