IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2010 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 RP.No. 948 of 2010() -------------------- (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 10/10/2007 IN WPC NO.5761/2004) REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------- ALI PATTAKKAL, S/O.SHRI.P .MOHAMMED, EX.SCIENTIST-ENGINEER 'SB', VSSC, TRIVANDRUM, RESIDING AT KOLATH HOUSE, VILAYIL.P.O., VIA KUZHIMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.KRISHNAKUMAR MR.P.H.SHAJI MR.TITTO THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR, VIKRAM SARABHAI SPACE CENTRE, ISRO POST, TRIVANDRUM-22. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, INDIAN SPACE RESEARCH ORGANIZATION, ANTARIKSH BHAVAN, NEW BELL ROAD, BANGALORE-94. 3. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SPACE, MINISTRY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110 001. ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI FOR R1,3 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: 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