Alok Goyal vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

This is a petition for review of the judgment and order dated 1.5.2008 passed by the Division Bench in W.P.(C) No. 5481 of 2007 by which the writ petition was partly allowed in favour of the petitioner substituting the punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect by substituting it with the punishment of censure.

To explain the position, a slight enumeration of the fact may be essential which is to the effect that the petitioner had been charged for misconduct on account of the fact that he had proceeded for an educational programme in the United States of America for two years'' Masters in Public Administration in the Harvard University and he had proceeded on leave without seeking a no objection certificate from the concerned authority. An enquiry thereafter was initiated against the petitioner and after full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, a report was submitted wherein he was held guilty of the charge of misconduct as he had proceeded on study leave without obtaining a ''no objection certificate'' from the competent authority.

The petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal and assailed the order of punishment imposed on him but the Tribunal was pleased to reject the application filed by the petitioner.

Thereafter, the petitioner assailed the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing a writ petition before the Division Bench and the Division Bench, as already stated, was pleased to allow the writ petition partly by substituting the order of punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect by substituting it with the punishment of censure.

The petitioner is still aggrieved of the judgment and order of the Division Bench and has preferred this review petition, in support of which it was submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the judgment and order suffers from error apparent on the face of the record since the petitioner had neither proceeded on regular leave or on study leave but had proceeded for extraordinary leave and if it were an extraordinary leave, the petitioner would not be entitled to any punishment as in that event, ''no objection certificate'' from the competent authority is not required.

The submission of the counsel can hardly be treated to be a case of error apparent on the face of the record as the petitioner had never pleaded before the Tribunal that he had proceeded on extraordinary leave, although he had said so in the writ petition. But even if it were so, the petitioner in effect would have to challenge that finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer by which it was held that the petitioner had proceeded on study leave without ''no objection certificate''.

Whether the petitioner proceeded on extraordinary leave, regular leave or study leave cannot be allowed to be raised at this belated stage by way of a review petition when there is no prima facie material before this Court and this point was not even urged before the Inquiry Officer. If the petitioner, in fact, had a case of this nature in his favour, it was his duty to raise it at the first instance before the Inquiry Officer which he failed to do. Hence, it is not a fit case where a petition of review can be entertained, which would be practically reopening the whole issue and the same would require re-appreciation of the entire matter. This obviously is not the scope at the stage of review.

Hence this review petition is rejected.