C. George Varghese vs Union Of India & Others

P. Madhavan, Member J

MA No. 180/110/2020 filed by the review applicant for condonation of delay in filing the RA is allowed.

This is a Review Application filed by the applicant in OA No. 180/571/2016 which was dismissed by this Tribunal vide order dated 29.11.2019. Since the Member who passed the order has ceased to be a Member of this Tribunal, the matter was heard before us after giving notice to both sides.

The review applicant’s case is that he had filed the above RA for a proper appreciation of the issue involved in the OA. According to him the Tribunal has not properly considered the various aspects involved in this matter and dismissed the OA vide order dated 29.11.2019. According to him he was fully eligible for appointment to the post of Regional Director on 17.7.2012 itself as the DoP&T had granted exemption of one year to him. As the residency period was fixed for five years, according to him he was eligible for promotion on 17.7.2012 and it was not considered and the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) has objected to the consideration of the applicant stating that he can be considered for the vacancy year 2013 and since on 31.12.2012 the applicant has retired from service he cannot be considered for the post. The review applicant has also alleged that the review application was necessitated due to the fake written note submitted before this Tribunal by the 3rd respondent and committing fraud by manipulating all official records, suppression of crucial material information, etc.

The review respondents (respondents in the OA) entered appearance and filed a detailed reply statement stating that the applicant cannot be permitted to re-agitate all the issues which has already been considered by this Tribunal in its earlier order dated 29.11.2019. If we go through the order of this Tribunal it can be seen that all the matters alleged by the review applicant was considered and the OA was dismissed by the Tribunal. The applicant cannot again re-agitate all the points in a review application. The review application has only limited scope. The respondents have relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v.Kamal Sen Gupta and Anr. – 2008 (8) SCC 612 wherein it was held by the apex court as under:

“17. The power of a Civil Court to review its judgment/decision is traceable in Section 114 CPC. The grounds on which review can be sought are enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, which reads as under:

“1. Application for review of judgment.- (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved-

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,

(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or

(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.”

Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kamal Sen Gupta’s case (supra) has enumerated the principles to be followed by the Administrative Tribunals when it exercises the power of review of its own orders under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. They are:

“(i) The power of the Tribunal to review its order/decision under Section 22(3)(f) of the Act is akin/analogous to the power of a Civil Court under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.

(ii) The Tribunal can review its decision on either of the grounds enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 and not otherwise.

(iii) The expression “any other sufficient reason” appearing in Order 47 Rule 1 has to be interpreted in the light of other specified grounds.

(iv) An error which is not self-evident and which can be discovered by a long process of reasoning, cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of record justifying exercise of power under Section 22(3)(f).

(v) An erroneous order/decision cannot be corrected in the guise of exercise of power of review.

(vi) A decision/order cannot be reviewed under Section 22(3)(f) on the basis of subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench of the Tribunal or of a superior Court.

(vii) While considering an application for review, the Tribunal must confine its adjudication with reference to material which was available at the time of initial decision. The happening of some subsequent event or development cannot be taken note of for declaring the initial order/decision as vitiated by an error apparent.

(viii) Mere discovery of a new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review. The party seeking review has also to show that such matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before the Court/Tribunal earlier.”

The review respondents submitted that there is no discovery of a new or important matter or evidence in favour of the review applicant to review the earlier order.

We have gone through the pleadings in the RA as well as the reply statement filed by the respondents in this case. We have also gone through the order passed by this Tribunal in the aforesaid OA on 29.11.2019. On a perusal of the said order it can be seen that the Tribunal has already dealt with all most all the matters submitted by the applicant in the review application and came to the finding that the applicant having retired on 30.11.2012 was clearly out of the zone of consideration and there was no reason to interfere with the observations made by the UPSC and the review applicant is not eligible to be promoted. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the OA. It appears that the applicant is under the impression that all the averments and allegations made in the OA can again be re-agitated in a review application as he is appearing as a party in person. RA has only a limited scope and this Tribunal has no power to review the order unless it comes under the purview of reasons mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. As per Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a review can be filed against a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed but from which no appeal has been preferred, by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed or by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes. The Tribunal can review its own order if there is a patent error or there is a discovery of a new or an important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by the applicant even though he has exercised due diligence. The review applicant has not produced any new evidence and there is nothing to show that the materials relied on by the review applicant was not available with him when the OA was heard.

We find merit in the contention put forward by the respondents in this case. The review applicant has not succeeded in showing that the order pronounced by this Tribunal was having a patent error or any illegality and that he has some new evidence to be produced which he could not produce with due diligence earlier. Mere allegations cannot be a basis for reviewing the earlier order of the Tribunal. Even though it is alleged by the review applicant that a fake written note was produced before this Tribunal by the 3rd respondent and it is a fraud committed by the respondents, etc. are not substantiated by the applicant in this review application. He has also not succeeded in showing any material evidence which were suppressed before this Tribunal.

In the circumstances, we find that the review application is not at all maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Review Application stands dismissed. No order as to costs.