IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2009 / 29TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 29790 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- P.V.CHANDRAN, PUTHENVEETTIL HOUSE, KOODALI P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT AGRICULTURAL FARM, KARIMPAM, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KANNUR. 3. THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF AGRICULTURE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 29790 OF 2009 (P) ===================== Dated this the 21st day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was an Agricultural Labourer in the District Agricultural Farm, Karimpam, Taliparamba. He was issued a memo of charges, an enquiry was held and finally by Ext.P3 order dated 30/8/05, the petitioner was terminated from service. Petitioner did not pursue his remedies against Ext.P3. 2. It would appear that there was a criminal case in relation to the same set of facts, which were the subject matter of the memo of charges. This case was chargesheeted as CC 662/2004 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Taliparamba. He has been acquitted in the criminal case as per Ext.P5 judgment of the Trial Court, rendered on 29th of September, 2008. Subsequently, on the strength of Ext.P5 judgment, petitioner made representations seeking reinstatement in service. In this writ petition, he says that in view of the acquittal, he is entitled to be reinstated and that the respondents ought to have passed orders on his representations in this behalf. 3. From the facts, it can be seen that even if the WPC 29790/09 :2 : allegations or the incidents which were the subject matter of the criminal case and the disciplinary enquiry are related, there was a memo of charges, an enquiry was held, petitioner was found guilty and it was on that finding, punishment of termination was imposed on the petitioner by Ext.P3. That order was issued on 30/8/05 and if the petitioner was aggrieved, he ought to have pursued his remedies against the order of termination. Therefore the fact that he was subsequently acquitted by Ext.P5 by itself, in the absence of challenging Ext.P3, cannot result in reinstatement of the petitioner. 4. Therefore, the proper course available to the petitioner was to have pursued his remedies against Ext.P3 and so long as that is not done, this Court will not be justified in granting any relief in this writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of without prejudice to the petitioner's remedy, if any, against Ext.P3. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp