Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi vs Robin Singh on 30 November, 2009
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench RA No.22/2009 MA No.2296/2009 in OA No.2367/2008 New Delhi, this the 30th day of November, 2009 Honble Mr. Justice M. Ramachandran, Vice Chairman(J) Honble Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) 1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi through Commissioner of Police Police Head Quarters, IP Estate, New Delhi. 2. Dy. Commissioner of Police 4th Bn. DAP, New Police Lines, Kingsway Camp, Delhi. Review Applicants. Versus Robin Singh (Roll No.40796) S/o Sh. Dharmpal Singh R/o VPO : Mulhera, Distt. Meerut (UP). .. Review Respondent. : O R D E R (IN CIRCULATION) : Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) :
The Government of NCTD and another, the Review Applicants, have raised the grounds to recall and review the order passed by this Tribunal in OA No.2367/2008 dated 8.09.2009. The main grounds raised by the Review Applicants are supported by the decisions of Honble High Court of Delhi in CWP No.7548/203 in the case of Rameshwar Prasad Meena versus Commissioner of Police and the judgment of coordinated Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Narender Kumar vs. Govt. of NCTD and another in OA No.29/2007 decided on 07.7.2007. In these 2 judgments, the Review Applicants have tried to project that a candidate despite the clear warning in bold letters in the beginning of the Attestation Form, if he does not disclose facts or particulars of his involvement in a criminal case, the Review Applicants are justified in taking action against such candidate. Further it is averred that the Tribunal had not appreciated the said facts. The Review Respondent was acquitted in a criminal case but was required to furnish the same information in relevant columns of Application Form and Attestation Form. In this regard the Review Applicants have relied on the judgment of Honble High Court of Delhi in CWP No.10546/2004 in the case of Pawan Kumar versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Others.
2. We have gone through the averments and the case laws relied on by the Review Applicants. We note that a detailed factual analysis has been done in our order dated 8.09.2009 and we came to certain considered conclusion, that within 3 days of framing of the charges against the Review Respondent, he was acquitted and till the fact was reported no action was initiated by the Review Applicants. The Review Respondent was issued a show cause notice only after the matter was voluntarily reported by the Review Respondent to the Review Applicants. Chronological events in the Paragraph 7 of the order bring out the full facts of the case. We have also gone through and analysed the case laws cited by the rival parties in our order. More specifically the dicta laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others versus Dinesh Kumar (AIR 2008 SC 1083) were comprehensively discussed. We do not find any ground which brings out the error apparent in facts or in law in our order by the Review Applicants. Therefore, the Review Applicants grounds raised in the RA is not admissible to be taken up for recalling the order to reexamine the issue afresh.
3. The order in OA 2367/2008 was passed on 8.9.2009 and the Review Application was filed on 06.11.2009. There is no delay in filing this RA for which the MA No.2296/2009 has been moved for condonation. The grounds of administrative exigencies and unavoidable circumstances have been placed for condonation of delay. But those remain unexplained in the MA and therefore, we are not convinced of the same.
4. The settled legal position is that this Tribunal cannot sit on appeal on its own order. We find from the averments in the Review Application, the grounds for review have not shown any error apparent in the order but pleaded the same and similar grounds which were presented before this Tribunal in the OA. We lay our reliance on the judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Versus Tarit Mohan Das (2003 STPL (L&E) 32747 SC) decided on 8-10-2003 and Gopal Singh Versus State Cadre Forest Officers Association [2007 STPL(LE) 38452 SC].
5. Taking into account the well settled legal position and the grounds averred by the Review Applicants, we do not find any error apparent in the order passed by us in OA No.2367/2008 dated 8.09.2009. In our considered view there is no justification to review the said order, and the Review Application is also hit by the delay. In the result, the RA is dismissed in circulation. No costs.
(Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda) (M. Ramachandran)
Member (A) Vice Chairman (J)
/pj/