Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Deptt Of Posts vs Pramod Kumar Rao on 8 April, 2024
1
RA No.23/2024 in
OA No.368/2023
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
RA No.23/2024/MA No.1091/2024
in
O.A. No.368/2023
This the 8th day of April, 2024
Hon'ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mrs. Pratima K. Gupta, Member (J)
1. Union of India Through
Its Secretary,
Department of Post,Dak Bhawan,
Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001.
Email : [email protected]
2. Chief Post Master General,
Haryana Circle,
Department of Post, Civil Lines Ambala,
Haryana-133001
Email : [email protected]
3. Post Master General, Gurugram,
O/o Post Master General, Gurugram
Department of Posts, Udyog Vihar Phase-V,
Gurugram-122016
Email : [email protected]
4. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Gurugram Division
Gurugram Head Post Office
Gurugram-122001
Email : [email protected]
5. Senior Post Master Cum DDO,
Gurugram Division,
Gurugram Head Post Office, Gurugram-122001
Email : [email protected]
...Review Applicants
(By Advocate : Shri Ashwani Kumar )
Versus
Pramod Kumar Rao, Group 'C'
S/o Late Jagdish Chandra,
O/o Post Master General, Gurugram,
Department of Posts, Udyog Vihar Phase-V,
Gurugram-122016
Email: pkrao800mail.com
2
RA No.23/2024 in
OA No.368/2023
R/o House No.1290,
Sector 17 C, Gurugram, Haryana-122007.
...Review Respondents
ORDER (By Circulartion)
By Hon'ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (A) :
MA No.1091/2024 in RA No.23/2024 in OA No.368/2023 This Application has been filed by the original applicant seeking condonation of delay of 09 days in filing the present Review Application.
2. For the reasons mentioned therein, the delay in filing the RA is condoned. Accordingly, the MA is allowed. RA No.23/2024 in OA No.368/2023 Through the instant Review Application filed under Section 22 (3) (f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the review applicants have sought review of order dated 28.03.2023 passed in OA No.368/2023. The relief as set forth in the Review Application reads as under :-
"(i) Review the order dated 28.03.2023 and direct the applicant in OA to join at PSD Ambala where he had already joined on 30.12.2022 A/N in reference to order dated 27.12.2022 (A-1).
(ii) To further direct applicant in OA to participate in the enquiry and thereafter after relieving from PSD Ambala be joined at his original office of posting i.e. as SPM DLF Phase II SO Gurgaon instead of office of PMG (Marketing and Business Promotion) Gurgaon as there is no post of LSG (Lower Selection Grade) Cadre and further he has already completed his tenure.3
RA No.23/2024 in OA No.368/2023
(iii) Pass and/or issue any such and further order/directions this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. The review applicants seek review of the daily order dated 28.03.2023. However, the OA is still pending adjudication before the Tribunal. The order under review reads as under :-
"Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 submits that he shall be filing the reply during the course of the day. Learned counsel for the applicant confirms that he has received an advance copy of the same.
There is a reply on record on behalf of respondent No. 3.
Curiously learned counsel for the respondents submits that he is not representing respondent No. 3 who too is a senior officer of the Department.
We are confronted with a unique position. We have also gone through the reply of respondent No. 3, who is said to be a direct supervising and controlling officer of the applicant. Respondent No.3 is stated to have not relieved the applicant and has also held the impugned order of attachment of the applicant to Haryana Circle of Ambala as irregular.
Without dwelling in detail upon the merits, we are prima facie of the view that the applicant may have been caught in the crossfire between the officers in the Department. Moreover, the language of the impugned order also gives an impression of some strong prejudice. It does not state that the applicant has been transferred but merely ''attached''. It further states that the 4 RA No.23/2024 in OA No.368/2023 official is deemed relieved from the Office of PMG Gurgaon. On the other hand, PMG Gurgaon is opposing this argument. Further, Post Master Gurgaon is directed not to draw pay and allowances to the official till his assumption of charge at Ambala.
What is the trigger for all such extreme directions in one order needs to be explained. Moreover, to reiterate the various documents placed on record as also the counter reply filed by respondent No. 3 clearly indicates that the said order could be an outcome of inter-personal politics of the officers which reflects very poorly on the organisation.
Since the pleadings in the matter are complete list it for final hearing on 11.07.2023.
The applicant shall be at liberty to file appropriate rejoinder if he so wishes during this period.
We had given an opportunity to the respondents to file a short affidavit on the applicant's prayer for interim relief. However, the same has not been done.
In view of the facts of the case as also in view of the limited observations made herein above as also the order dated 18.03.2023, we have no hesitation in allowing the prayer of the applicant for interim relief in terms of para 9 of the O.A. The respondent No. 5 is directed to forthwith release the salary of the applicant along with the arrears certainly not later than a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Further till the finalization of this O.A., the applicant shall be deemed to have been posted and on duty as on 27.12.2022, the day the impugned order was passed.
List on 11.07.2023."5
RA No.23/2024 in OA No.368/2023
3. The last paragraph of the order under review, as quoted hereinabove, is unambiguously clear that the applicant shall be deemed to have been posted on duty as on 27.12.2022 i.e. the day when the impugned order was passed. Therefore, the prayer under review is not maintainable. Moreso, the reason for review of the order is that while passing the order dated 28.03.2023, the reply of respondents No.1,2,4&5 was not on record and the order has been passed without taking into consideration contention of respondent Nos.1,2,4&5. Only reply already filed on behalf of respondent No.3 was taken into consideration.
4. We have carefully considered the contentions raised by the review applicants and examined the order against which the review has been sought.
5. From the order dated 28.03.2024, it is clear that the same was passed with the assistance of learned counsel representing respondents No.1,2,4&5 and it further reflects that respondent No.3 was the controlling officer of the applicant and this fact is not disputed even in the Review Application.
6
RA No.23/2024 in OA No.368/2023
6. There is no finding of fact or law in the order under review that may define an error of fact or record the order, which could be the trigger for filing the present Review Application. The learned counsel for the review applicants is trying to re-argue the matter and is bringing out the facts which have already been duly considered.
7. The scope of review is limited to situations where a new evidence has been discovered, which despite due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the applicant earlier either on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record. These principles have been reiterated :-
(i) Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan Das, (2004) SCC (L&S) 160
(ii) Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa and Others, (1999) 9 SCC 596
(iii) State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Kamal Sengupta & Anr 2008 (9) SCALE 509
(iv) Gopal Singh Vs. State Cadre Forest Officers Association & Ors. 2007 9 SCC 369
8. 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 7 RA No.23/2024 in OA No.368/2023 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 8 RA No.23/2024 in OA No.368/2023 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."
9. From the above, it is amply clear that existence of error apparent on the face of record is sine qua non for entertainment of the Review Application.
10. We have perused the order under review as also the grounds of review. We are convinced that as there is no finding of fact or law, there cannot be an error with respect to the same warranting interference in the order through the exercise of review jurisdiction.
11. The review application is accordingly dismissed in circulation.
(Pratima K. Gupta) (Tarun Shridhar)
Member (J) Member (A)
'rk'