VISWANATHAN K C Vs. D PAPPACHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The review petition has been filed with a delay of 2086 days. We have heard Sri.S.Ramesh appearing for the review petitioner and Sri.B.Unnikrishna Kaimal for respondents 2 and 3 and the learned Senior Government Pleader for the 1st respondent. Respondents 2 and 3 have filed an objection to the delay petition. We are of the opinion that the delay and the merits of the matter can be considered together, since in explanation of the delay the review petitioner projects the subsequent events and the proceedings he took to remove the so-called slur against his being appointed to a civil employment.

(2.) The admitted facts are that the petitioner was appointed as a Peon in the Irrigation Department in the year 1992 and obtained an inter-departmental transfer to the Judicial Department in 1993. He was promoted to the post of Lower Division Clerk when, on the basis of a complaint received by the Registrar General of the High Court of Kerala, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellant for not having disclosed the fact that he was dismissed from the Indian Army as a consequence of his having deserted the service. He was also categorised as unfit for civil employment. None of these were disclosed at the time of his being considered for appointment either in his application or before the Kerala Public Service Commission [for brevity "KPSC"], where he appeared for the interview. The disciplinary proceedings ended in a finding of guilt and he was dismissed from the civil service on the basis of the findings in the disciplinary proceedings. A writ petition was filed against the order passed, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge. An appeal filed before this Court was also dismissed, in which all contentions raised against the dismissal, including the procedural irregularities alleged against the disciplinary proceedings, were considered and negatived by a Division Bench of this Court. The explanation for the delay occasioned and the grounds for filing a review petition are all based on subsequent events.

(3.) While the disciplinary proceedings were pending, the review petitioner had approached this Court with a writ petition seeking consideration by the Armed Forces as to his eligibility for civil employment. The writ petition was disposed of by Exhibit P3 produced in the writ petition, directing consideration of the issue. The same was considered and rejected by an order dated 02.06.2008. This order was challenged before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kochi [for brevity "AFT"] in which Annexure A1 order was passed on 25.07.2013; after the dismissal of the Writ Appeal. Therein, the AFT considered the judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court in Govind Nath v. State of Uttarakhand and Others [W.P. No.1126 of 2004] to find that dismissal from Armed Services and appointment in civil service has different connotations and import and there could be very diverse factors which need to be considered. The mere fact that one person was dismissed from Armed Service would not mean that he is unfit for appointment in civil service. A re-consideration was directed.