Staff Selection Through Its Chairman And Ors vs Virender Singh

K.N.Shrivastava, Member (A)

Through the medium of this Review Application (RA) filed under Section 22 (3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the review applicants/original respondents have sought review of Tribunal's order dated 05.04.2018 in OA No.683/2018, in which the following direction was issued:

"6. Since we have already seen in the case of Sudesh (supra) that the second show cause notice issued was again almost the repetition of the first show cause notice, therefore, any fresh show cause notice which, by and large, has the same contents as the first show cause notice, will amount to misuse of this liberty. Therefore, the second show cause notice should be issued only if the respondents are in a position to put in the show cause notice substantial evidence in support of their allegations in a manner which can be reasonably rebutted by the applicants. It is made clear that if the fresh show cause notice is not issued within the stipulated time i.e. within one month of the receipt of a certified copy of this order, then the benefit of selection must be given effect to the applicant in terms of the decision in Sudesh Kumar's case (supra), within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order."

The review applicants have primarily mentioned the following grounds for review:

a) The Tribunal has not considered the long delay of 1687 days in filing OA No.683/2018 and has condoned this delay merely on the basis that the case of the original applicant is a covered case. The Tribunal has not discussed the delay of 4-1/2 years after the reply dated 13.06.2013 to the show cause notice dated 27.05.2013.

Hence, in terms of Section 21(1)(b) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 the OA ought to have been dismissed.

b) The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Uttaranchal and another v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and others, [(2013) 12 SCC 179] and U.P. Jal Nigam and another v. Jaswant Singh and another, [(2006) 11 SCC 464] has held that delay and laches have to be examined first by the Court before taking cognizance of the main issue but the Tribunal has failed to apply the principle laid down in these judgments.

c) The order under review has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, as the review applicants/original respondents were not given an opportunity of arguing the matter nor filing the counter-reply.

Brief arguments of the learned counsel for the parties were heard on 02.11.2018.

We notice from the record that the issue of delay and laches has been dealt with by the Tribunal in the order under review, including the ratio laid down in the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Uttaranchal (supra) and U.P. Jal Nigam (supra). The Tribunal, however, took a view that the delay involved deserved to be condoned. Further, on the merit issue, the Tribunal has taken a conscientious view that the case of the applicant is squarely covered by the judgment of the Tribunal in Ashok Kumar v. SSC and others, [OA No.1352/2013, order dated 22.11.2013]. The Tribunal has also noted that in a similar matter in Sudesh v. SSC and others, [OA No.930/2014, order dated 30.07.2014] the Tribunal has taken an identical view as in Ashok Kumar (supra) and the Tribunal's order in Sudesh Kumar (supra) has been affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Hon'ble Apex Court. Accordingly, the Tribunal in the order under review has held that the original applicant was identically placed and his case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Ashok Kumar (supra) and accordingly passed the order under review.

From the discussions in the foregoing paras, it is quite apparent that the issues raised by the review applicants/original respondents have already been considered by the Tribunal while passing the order under review. If the review applicants/original respondents are aggrieved of the order, the proper course for them would be to challenge the Tribunal's order at an appropriate higher judicial forum. The review applicants have failed to bring out any apparent error in the face of the Tribunal's order. Needless to say that sine qua non for review of an order is presence of an apparent error on its face, which is missing.

In view of the above, we do not find any merit in this RA. Accordingly, it is dismissed.

In view of the above, no separate orders are required to be passed in MA No.4155/2018, which stands disposed of.

Issue notice to the respondents/alleged contemnors, returnable on 07.12.2018.