AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
L. Narasimha Reddy, J
The applicant was imposed the punishment of stoppage of two increments for a period of two years by the Disciplinary Authority. The applicant filed a review before the Lt. Governor who in turn passed an order dated 02.09.2011 modifying the punishment to the one of stoppage of two increments for a period of one year without cumulative effect. The applicant filed OA No.43/2012 before this Tribunal. The OA was dismissed on 12.05.2015 and the order in the OA became final.
Feeling that there existed some grounds for review of the order passed by the Lt. Governor, the applicant filed a review. The same was, however, dismissed stating that there does not exist any power of review under Regulation 16 of DMC Services (Control & Appeal) Regulations, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations). Hence, this OA.
The respondents reiterated their contention that the review filed by the applicant is not maintainable.
Heard Shri Pushpinder Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri R. K. Jain, learned counsel for the respondents.
There is no denial of the fact that the order of punishment as modified in appeal was the subject matter in an OA before this Tribunal and the OA was dismissed as devoid of merits. If the applicant was not satisfied with that order, it was open to him to pursue other remedies. That not having been done, the order passed in the OA became final. It is brought to our notice that an application for review was filed in the OA and that was also dismissed.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has discovered some new grounds to challenge the order of punishment and accordingly filed a review before the Lt. Governor. Reliance is placed upon Regulation 16 of the Regulations, referred to above. The applicant mistook the power of review contained in Regulation 16 for the one which empowers an authority to review its own order for correction of mistakes and other similar things. The power of review mentioned in Regulation 16 is to be exercised by a superior authority, and not by the same authority which passed the order. In a way, this is an extended form of appeal. What is invoked by the applicant is akin to the one under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. Such a power can be exercised only when it is specifically conferred and it cannot be inferred. It is on account of misconception and misconstruction of Regulation 16 that the present OA came to be filed.
We do not find any merit in the OA, and it is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.