AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A): The applicant has filed this Review Application seeking this Bench to review the order dated 21.11.2019 in OA No. 78/2016 in exercise of the power under Section 22 (3)(f) of AT Act, 1985 read with Rule 17 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987.
Heard. Perused the records.
We think it just and proper to deal with little bit background of the case of the applicant for effective adjudication of this review filed by the applicant, which are that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the applicant on allegation of omission and commission in discharging his official duties. The matter was inquired into and t he applicant himself admitted the allegation brought home against him. The matter was proceeded ahead in accordance with the procedure provided under the rules including obtaining the advice of the UPSC. After being punished and becoming unsuccessful to remedy his grievance at the hands of the authorities as per rules, he approached this Bench in OA No. 78/2016 seeking quashing of the proceedings among other grounds also on the ground of non-supply of the UPSC report prior to imposition of punishment on him, which was heard and dismissed in a well reasoned and speaking order dated 21.11.2019. Hence, being aggrieved, the applicant has filed this RA requiring this Bench to review the order dated 21.11.2019 by answering on the question of law/grounds as under:
“(i)Whether the non-supply of the report of the UPSC can be treated as violation of principles of natural justice or not?
(ii)Whether the decision made by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 16.03.2011 in S. K. Kapoor's can be treated as ineffective till it has been circulated by the DOPT on 06.01.2014?
(iii)Whether an inquiry report is valid in the eyes of law in absence of any assessment of evidence by the I.O as required by the Rule 14(23)(i) (c) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965?
(iv)Whether the applicant was given adequate opportunity to defend himself in the present case?”
The respondents opposed the very sustainability and maintainability of this RA in the present form and prayed for dismissal of the same.
Keeping in mind the provision of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and the dicta set out by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of exercising power of review by the Court/Tribunal, we have examined the grounds set up by the applicant in this RA. On examination of the record, we find Central Administrative Tribunalthat this Bench took note of all the submissions and answered the same as to why the Bench did not agree with the said points. It is also noticed that the Bench took note of the UPSC observation and the decision relied on by the applicant and observed that the applicant did not produce any document to contradict the observation made by the UPSC and, that, from the observation of the UPSC, it was clear that the charge against the applicant cannot be considered as not serious and punishment imposed cannot be considered to be disproportionate taking into account the nature of alleged misconduct against him. Accordingly, this Bench dismissed the OA.
Review of an order/judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission of patent mistake or like grave error has crept in the order sought to be reviewed by judicial fallibility and, that, a review petition cannot be used as an appeal in disguise, is the law of the land. In this regard, it would suffice to place reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1963 SC 1909) (at p. 1911); Sow. Chandra Kanta v. Sheikh Habib (AIR 1975 SC 1500); A. T. Sharma v. A. P. Sharma (AIR 1979 SC 1047); Northern India Caterers v. Lt. Governor of Delhi (AIR 1980 SC 674), and Parsion Devi & Ors. vs. Sumitri Devi & Ors., (1997) 8 SCC 715.
The relevant portion of the decision in the case of Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1963 SC 1909) (at p. 1911) reads as under:
"It is sufficient to say that there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it."
The relevant portion of the decision in the case of Sow. Chandra Kanta v. Sheikh Habib (AIR 1975 SC 1500), reads as under:
"A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission of patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility."
The relevant portion of the decision in the case of A. T. Sharma v. A. P. Sharma (AIR 1979 SC 1047), reads as under:
"It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1963 SC 1909) there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it, But there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of Central Administrative Tribunalreview. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground."
While dealing with the power to review its own judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Northern India Caterers v. Lt. Governor of Delhi (AIR 1980 SC 674), reiterated the view taken by it in Sow Chandra Kanta's case (supra) held that the finality of a judgment delivered by the Court will not be reconsidered except "where a glaring omission or a patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility".
Thus, from the above, it is no more res integra that review jurisdiction can be exercised for the correction of a mistake and not to substitute a view. In Parsion Devi & Ors. vs. Sumitri Devi & Ors., (1997) 8 SCC 715, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:-
“9.Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule I CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC , it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise".
Keeping in mind the aforesaid dictata and the very provision of order 47, Rule 1 CPC, even on a microscopic scanning of the pleadings made in this RA, it is completely established this RA has been filed not for correcting any such glaring/ patent mistake/grave error but correcting erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected" in exercising the power/authority/jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC which is impermissible in law.
In the circumstances stated above, we see no ground to entertain this RA, which is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.