K. Sreedharan Vs. Chief Security Commissioner & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Review Petition (C) No. 609 of 2000
In
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 11535 of 1998
In
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 11535 of 1998
Petitioner: K. Sreedharan
Respondent: Chief Security Commissioner & Ors.
Apeal: Review Petition (C) No. 609 of 2000
In
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 11535 of 1998
In
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 11535 of 1998
Judges: S.B. MAJMUDAR & M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 26, 2000
Appearances:
26.7.2000
Head Note:
CONSTITUTION
Article 137 – Review – Delay of 589 days – Not satisfactorily explained – Ground of not contacting Counsel due to shock and heart disease – No document – Even on merits, attempt to re-argue the case – Acquitted in Criminal case – Proceeded in departmental enquiry – Charge not proved beyond doubt. Held that there was no ground either to condone delay or to allow review. Petition dismissed. (Para 1)
Held:
26.7.2000
Cases Reffered:
26.7.2000
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Delay of 589 days is not satisfactorily explained. All that is stated in the application for condonation of delay is that the petitioner was not able to contact the advocate immediately because of the shock suffered by him. After getting the information about the dismissal of his special leave petition, he could contact the advocate in the month of March, 2000 when he became normal and he is still suffering from heart disease. But he has not supplied any documentary evidence to support these averments. Leaving that aside, we have also gone through the merits of the review petition with a view to finding out whether there is any substance in the review petition. His contention in the review proceedings centres round the departmental enquiry. An attempt is made to re-argue the matter and submit that because he was acquitted by the criminal court, he could not be proceeded against departmentally. It is now well settled that if acquittal by a criminal court is not a clean one, but it is only by giving benefit of doubt, departmental enquiries on the same allegation against him, cannot be said to be barred. His acquittal was on the ground that the charge was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, even on merits the review petition is liable to be dismissed and, therefore, the review petition is dismissed both on the ground of not satisfactorily explained gross delay as well as on merits.
1. Delay of 589 days is not satisfactorily explained. All that is stated in the application for condonation of delay is that the petitioner was not able to contact the advocate immediately because of the shock suffered by him. After getting the information about the dismissal of his special leave petition, he could contact the advocate in the month of March, 2000 when he became normal and he is still suffering from heart disease. But he has not supplied any documentary evidence to support these averments. Leaving that aside, we have also gone through the merits of the review petition with a view to finding out whether there is any substance in the review petition. His contention in the review proceedings centres round the departmental enquiry. An attempt is made to re-argue the matter and submit that because he was acquitted by the criminal court, he could not be proceeded against departmentally. It is now well settled that if acquittal by a criminal court is not a clean one, but it is only by giving benefit of doubt, departmental enquiries on the same allegation against him, cannot be said to be barred. His acquittal was on the ground that the charge was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, even on merits the review petition is liable to be dismissed and, therefore, the review petition is dismissed both on the ground of not satisfactorily explained gross delay as well as on merits.
