Dr. Radha Dubey vs Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Others

Anil Kumar, J.

CM No.2149/2010

This is an application seeking condonation of 18 days delay in filing the review application by the petitioner.

For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed and the delay is condoned. Application stands disposed off.

R.A no. 68 of 2010 & CM No.2148/2010

The petitioner seeks review of order dated 21st December, 2009 dismissing her petition wherein she had assailed the order dated 13.11.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No.2745/2008 dismissing her original application. The petitioner has also sought directions to the respondents to produce her leave account.

The petitioner was working as medical officer under the Government NCT of Delhi and on account of remaining absent from duty for considerable period her services were terminated by letter dated 23.-27.11.2007, which was challenged by the petitioner by filing a Original Application No.2745/2009, titled as ''Dr. Radha Dubey vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and another'', which was dismissed by the Tribunal by order dated 13.11.2009.

The order of the Tribunal dismissing the petitioner''s application was challenged in the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.13988/2009, filed before this Court which was also dismissed by order dated 21.12.2009, holding inter-alia, that the services of the petitioner had not been regularized, and merely because the petitioner was being paid salary admissible to the regular employees, on the basis of ''equal pay for equal work'', it could not be held that the petitioner who was appointed on contract basis had been regularized. The plea of the petitioner that the termination of her service was very harsh was also rejected by holding that alleged compelling circumstances of the petitioner which kept her away from her employment, could not be a reason for the petitioner to remain absent indefinitely. She had been sanctioned leave only for 20 days. Though the leave was extended for some time thereafter, however, since the petitioner kept seeking further leave, the same was denied and she was required to join back her duty, which was disregarded by the petitioner and even the warnings issued to her were ignored.

The petitioner has sought review of the order dated 21.12.2009 contending that the order dated 21.12.2009 proceeds on the basis that the balance leave to the petitioner''s credit had got exhausted which, according to the petitioner is not correct and, is an error apparent on the face of the record.

7.The learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that some of the relevant rules were not considered by this Court regarding grant of leave, and consequently, the order dated 21.12.2009 is liable to be reviewed.

This Court while dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner had specifically held that a medical organization cannot be efficiently run in public interest, if the staff and employees appointed to render services remain on indefinite leave, as absence of medical officer will result in crumbling of the entire system and the personal difficulty of such officer cannot be accepted beyond a particular point. It was also held that the respondents could not be faulted for not extending the initially sanctioned leave for 20 days to about 19 months which was the period for which the petitioner did not report for work which resulted into the termination order being passed against her.

It is well settled that the review proceedings are confined within the ambit and scope of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure of Code, 1908 which contemplates that an order may be open to review only if there is a mistake or an error in the impugned order which is apparent on the face of the record. This cannot be disputed that an error which is not self evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be set up as an error apparent on the face of the record. In exercise of review jurisdiction, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be re-heard on merits and corrected. A review petition has a limited purpose and the same cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise. A review does not entitle the applicant for a fresh hearing or arguments or correction of an erroneous view taken earlier. The Courts have held in various pronouncements that power of review can be exercised only for correction of a patent error of law and facts which are apparent in the face without any elaborate argument being needed establishing it.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to re-argue the whole matter by contending that the observation made in the order that the balance leave to her credit has got exhausted is not correct, and therefore, the petition could not have been dismissed. By doing so she is in fact asking for re-appreciation of the entire pleas and contentions. Even if the entire leave to her credit was not exhausted, the petitioner could not remain absent for almost 19 months after getting leave sanctioned only for 20 days.

Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that she was entitled for 5 years leave, however, the point for consideration is whether she remained absent without authorized leave or not. In any case this plea cannot be taken into consideration this being a review petition and not an appeal. This has not been disputed that she remained absent for 19 months, and in the circumstances, it cannot be held that there is any patent error in the order of this Court.

In the circumstances, we do not find any ground to review the order dated 21.12.2009 and the review application is therefore, dismissed. Since we have dismissed the review application after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, the application for directions being CM No.2148/2010 does not survive and the same is disposed of.