Satya Pal Singh vs Union Of India Through And Ors

K.N. Shrivastava

This Review Application (RA) has been filed by the original applicant under Section 22 (3) (f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking review of Tribunal's order dated 31.08.2018 in OA No.2647/2018.

The applicant in the RA has, inter alia, pleaded the following grounds:

2.1 In para 4.1 (page 5) of the judgment this Hon'ble Tribunal had erroneously held that charge memo was served upon the petitioner on 28.03.2018 (should be 2017) and the written statement of defence was submitted by the petitioner on 20.04.2017. This is a factual error because the charge sheet was actually served on 28.3.2017 and the reply was given by the petitioner on 20.4.2017, i.e., within 22 days, but the Hon'ble Tribunal had erroneously observed in para-7 of the judgment that the "petitioner almost took one year to file the written statement against the charge memo." It is a factual error. The written statement of defence was filed within 22 days from the date when the charge sheet was issued, while this Hon'ble Tribunal had observed that the written statement of defence was filed almost one year from the date of the charge sheet (para 7 of the judgment).

2.2 Another error which crept in the judgment is that this Hon'ble Tribunal had held that "although the new inquiry officer had held half a dozen sittings but the petitioner had not been fully cooperating with the inquiry is erroneous." Perusal of the OA as well as rejoinder clearly show that genuineness of RUD 2 which was supplied to the petitioner along with charge sheet dated 27.11.2017 (Annexure A-7 of the OA) it was observed that the said disputed document RUD 2 had to be supplemented by the original document because it clearly showed that the document was defective. This fact has escaped the notice of the Tribunal. These six dates were consumed because of the delay on the part of the presenting officer as well as the inquiry officer but certainly not on account of non-cooperation on the part of the petitioner.

2.3 The observation of the Tribunal that the petitioner had not been fully cooperating with the inquiry officer is uncalled for because there is absolutely no evidence to show that the applicant had failed to cooperate with the inquiry, rather the evidence in the form of order sheets clearly show that he had been requesting for expeditious disposal of the inquiry.

2.4 The Hon'ble Tribunal in para 4.2 has recorded that the petitioner had expressed his apprehension about the biasness on the part of the petitioner for not getting justice had been fully justified by the disciplinary authority. The fact that the disciplinary authority had changed the inquiry officer is a clear proof that there was no imaginary allegation levelled by the petitioner against the inquiry officer.

2.5 The Hon'ble Tribunal had erroneously held that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Nath Bali has not laid down any law, is erroneous.

2.6 The decision of the Division Bench judgment in the case of U. Dass, which was filed as Annexure A-14 to the OA has also escaped the notice of this Hon'ble Tribunal in which the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Tribunal had relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prem Nath Bali.

We have gone through the averments made in the RA and have also closely perused the grounds raised in it in support of seeking review of the Tribunal's order dated 31.08.2018. Insofar as the contention of the applicant that the Tribunal had erred in observing that the petitioner almost took one year to file the written statement against the charge memo is concerned, we have perused the OA and find that the applicant in fact had submitted his representation on 20.04.2017 to the charge-memo dated 28.03.2017 and are thus satisfied that the words 'one year' should be substituted by the words '22 days' in para-7 of the order under review. We, therefore, direct the Registry to carry out the said correction in the original order with red ink and issue corrected copy of the same to the parties.

As regards other grounds, these grounds had been pleaded by the applicant in the OA as well. From a bare reading of the RA, one would get an impression that the applicant has tried to re-argue his case, as if in appeal, which is not permitted under law.

It is settled law that sine qua non for review of an order is existence of an error apparent on the face of the record of the order.

In the instant case the review applicant has failed to point out any apparent error on the face of the Tribunal's order.

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 a 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."

For the reasons discussed in the foregoing paras, we do not find any merit in the RA. Accordingly, the RA is disposed of, in circulation.