Parveen Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors

Manish Garg, Member (J)

The review applicants through the medium of this Review Application (RA) filed under Section 22 (3) (f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 have sought review of the Tribunal’s order dated 22.12.2022 passed in OA No.3445/2022 vide which the said OA was dismissed with the following orders:-

“19. We are also of the considered view that the chargesheet cannot be interfered with by the Tribunal at this stage as the applicant has already participated in the enquiry on various dates, as mentioned above, and he has also submitted his response to the Memorandum dated 31.08.2021. More so, the applicant, who has been working since 2014 till date, has not been deprived of any legal right as he is very much in service. It is also important to note that no explanation has been offered by the applicant as to why he has approached the court at the belated stage of enquiry seeking to challenge OM dated 31.08.2021 after having participated in the enquiry. We are also of the considered opinion that the purpose of holding departmental enquiry is to establish the truth in the matter following the principles of natural justice where the applicant can put forth all the arguments in his defence before the relevant enquiry authority. We make it clear that Disciplinary Authority, without any influence, should strictly proceed with departmental enquiry in accordance with the prescribed procedure and the law, following the principles of natural justice. It is further made clear that dismissal of the present OA shall not tantamount to expression of any opinion on the merits of the case. The OA itself is premature and the same is accordingly dismissed.”

The ground for review raised by the review applicants is that unless the handwriting expert’s opinion on the aspect of mismatch of handwriting/signatures is corroborated with other supporting material, allegation of impersonation cannot be levelled and, thus, the chargesheet issued to the applicant needs to be quashed being not maintainable. It is also pointed out that the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madan Bihari Lal vs. State of Punjab & Ors. [1977 (2) SCC 210] and in Padum Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [2020 (3) SCC 35] as well as decision of Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. and of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Bachittar Singh & Ors. vs. Harnek Singh & Ors. have skipped from the notice of the Tribunal while rendering the order under review.

We have gone through the order dated 22.12.2022 passed in OA No.3445/2022 and found that all the grounds taken and decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant have been duly taken into account while deciding the same.

On the power of the Tribunal to review its own orders, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down clear guidelines in its judgment in the case of State of West Bengal & others Vs. Kamal Sengupta and another, [2008 (3) AISLJ 209] stating therein that “the Tribunal can exercise powers of a Civil Court in relation to matter enumerated in clauses (a) to (i) of sub-section (3) of Section (22) of Administrative Tribunal Act including the power of reviewing its decision.” At Para (28) of the judgment, the principles culled out by the Supreme Court are as under:-

“(i) The power of Tribunal to review it 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) of 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 specific 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 in the fact of record justifying exercise of power under Section 22(2) (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 a larger bench of the Tribunal or of a superior court

(vii) A decision/order cannot be reviewed under Section 22(3)(f).

(viii) 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.

(ix) Mere discovery of 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.”

It is apparent from the above that the scope of the review has a very narrow compass. It has already been covered that there is a difference between appeal and review, and a review cannot be a disguised appeal.

Existence of an error apparent on the face of record is sine qua non for review of the order. We have perused the judgment under review, grounds of review as also the decisions relied upon by the review applicants. We do not find any error apparent on the face of record warranting interference in exercise of the review jurisdiction.

The review application is accordingly rejected in circulation.

No order as to costs.