Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Mn Narasimha Murthy vs M/O Personnel,Public Grievances And ... on 21 March, 2024
1 RA 2/2024
in OA 543/2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BENGALURU BENCH
RA/170/00002/2024
in
OA/170/00543/2019
Dated this Thursday,21st day of March, Two Thousand Twenty
Four
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI,
MEMBER(A)
AND
HON'BLE MR M. SWAMINATHAN, MEMBER(J)
M.N. Narasimha Murthy,
S/o Shri N. Narasiyappa,
Superintendent of Central Tax (GST),
O/o Assistant Commissioner of
Central Tax (GST),
Division-3, Bengaluru, Banashankari,
Kanakapura Road,
Bengaluru. .. Applicant
By Advocate Mr. T.C.Gupta
Vs.
1. Union of India
rep by the Director,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances
and Pensions,
Department of Personnel and Training,
North Block, New Delhi.
2.Union of India
rep by the Secretary,
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue,
Central Board of Excise & Customs,
North Block, New Delhi.
2 RA 2/2024
in OA 543/2019
3. The Chairman,
Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs,
North Block, New Delhi.
4.The Director General,
Directorate of Performance,
Management, Customs,
Central Goods and Service Tax,
5th Floor, 'D' Block, I.P. Bhavan,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi.
5.The Principal Director General,
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,
Hqrs, 7th Floor, 'D' Block, I.P. Bhavan,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi.
6.The Principal Additional Director General,
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,
Zonal Unit, No.8(2)/P, Opposite to BDA Complex,
H.B.R. Layout, Kalyananagar Post,
Bengaluru.
7.J.P. Raju,
Intelligence Officer,
Now Superintendent (Central Excise),
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,
Delhi Zonal Unit, B-3&4, 6th Floor,
Pt. Deendayal Anthoydaya Bhawan,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi.
8.Mahesh Chand,
Intelligence Officer,
Now Superintendent (Central Excise),
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,
Delhi Zonal Unit, B-3&4, 6th Floor,
Pt. Deendayal Anthoydaya Bhawan,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi.
3 RA 2/2024
in OA 543/2019
9.Suma Appukuttan,
Intelligence Officer,
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,
Mumbai Zonal Unit,
3rd, 4th & 5th Floor,
13, Sir Vithaldas Thackersey Marg,
Opp. Patkar Hall,
New Marine Lines, Mumbai.
10.Rajeev K. Sadana,
Intelligence Officer,
Now Superintendent (Central Excise),
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,
Delhi Zonal Unit, B-3&4, 6th Floor,
Pt. Deendayal Anthoydaya Bhawan,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi.
11. Ajay Bhasin,
Intelligence Officer,
Now Superintendent (Central Excise),
Directorate General of Vigilance,
Zonal Unit, Customs and Central Excise,
7-R. Dalibagh, Lucknow.
12.Rohit Issar,
Intelligence Officer,
Now Superintendent (Central Excise),
Directorate General of Goods and
Service Tax Intelligence,
West Block VIII, Wing No.VI,
2nd Floor, R.K. Puram,
New Delhi.
13.Vinod Kumar,
Intelligence Officer,
Now Superintendent (Central Excise),
Directorate General of Analytics and
Risk Management,
UG Floor, EIL Annexe Building,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi.
4 RA 2/2024
in OA 543/2019
14. Kuldeep Singh Nijhar,
Intelligence Officer,
Now Superintendent (Central Excise),
Directorate General of Goods and
Service Tax Intelligence,
West Block VIII, Wing No.VI,
2nd Floor, R.K. Puram,
New Delhi.
15.Vinay Verma,
Intelligence Officer,
Now Superintendent(Central Excise),
Directorate of General of Performance
Management, Customs,
Central Goods and Service Tax,
5th Floor, 'D' Block, I.P. Bhavan,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi.
16.Rajesh M. Nair,
Intelligence Officer,
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,
Mumbai Zonal Unit,
3rd, 4th & 5th Floor,
13, Sir Vithaldas Thackersey Marg,
Opp. Parkar Hall, New Marine Lines,
Mumbai. .. Respondents
By Advocate Mr. Vishnu Bhat for R. 1 to 6
5 RA 2/2024
in OA 543/2019
ORAL ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member) This Review Application No.2 of 2024 was filed by the applicant in the OA 543 of 2019 seeking review of the order, dated 12.12.2023, passed in the said OA.
2. Heard the learned counsels on both the sides. We have also carefully gone through the order, dated 12.12.2023, in OA 543 of 2019.
3. In the RA, the applicant has averred that the order, dated 12.12.2023, is apparently mistaken. The issue that three backlog vacancies existed as on 29.07.2009, has already been decided by the Tribunal order, dated 01.08.2019. In the High Court order, dated 28.07.2023, the Tribunal was directed only to ascertain when those 3 backlog vacancies meant for STs were available and from what date those vacancies arose. It is further averred that the Tribunal in its order, dated 12.12.2023, accepted the arguments of the respondents that the reservation started only from 10 vacancies, as per the Tribunal earlier order, dated 09.08.2011, in OA 434 of 2010, without any basis, when, in the subsequent order, dated 01.08.2019, it was finalized that, as on 29.07.2009, there were 3 backlog vacancies for STs. Even in para 11 of the order, dated 09.09.2011, it has been held that the post of IO has been getting filled by promotion and 6 RA 2/2024 in OA 543/2019 cadres of STA and SG Gr.II or Assistant are only treated as feeder cadres. According to the applicant, the applicability of reservation from 10 vacancies onwards by the Tribunal is baseless and mistake apparent from the records. The reservation was made applicable from 02.07.1997, in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of R.K.Sabharwal and, in the instant case also, it was applicable from 02.07.1997 onwards. It is also averred that the ground that no reservation roster was maintained by the respondents cannot nullify the legal provisions of reservation. Hence, he pleaded for review of the order, dated 12.12.2023.
4. On perusal of the order in OA 543 of 2019, we found that the case of the applicant has a chequered history. The points raised in the RA have already been dealt with by the Tribunal and a well considered order has been passed already. Hence, we do not find any error apparent on the face of the records in the order passed by the Tribunal
5. The scope of review lies in a narrow compass as prescribed under Order XLVII, Rule (1) of the CPC. None of the grounds raised in the RA brings it within the scope and purview of review. If, in the opinion of the review applicant, the order passed by the Tribunal is erroneous, the remedy lies elsewhere. In the case of Meera Bhanja (Smt) Vs.Nirmala Kumari Chaudhury (Smt) (1995) 1 SCC 170), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:- 7 RA 2/2024 in OA 543/2019
"In the present case the approach of the Division Bench dealing with the review proceedings clearly shows that it has overstepped its jurisdiction under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC by merely styling the reasoning adopted by the earlier Division Bench as suffering from a patent error. It would not become a patent error or error apparent by doing so. The Review Bench has re-appreciated the entire evidence, sat almost as court of appeal and has reversed the findings reached by the earlier Division Bench. Even if the earlier Division Bench's findings were found to be erroneous, it would be no ground for reviewing the same, as that would be the function of an appellate court...."
6. Again, in the case of Union of India Vs. Tarit Ranjan Das (2004) SCC (L&S) 160), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:-
"13. The Tribunal passed the impugned order by reviewing the earlier order. A bare reading of the two orders shows that the order in review application was in complete variation and disregard of the earlier order and the strong as well as sound reasons contained therein whereby the original application was rejected. The scope for review is rather limited and it is not permissible for the forum hearing the review application to act as an appellate authority in respect of the original order by a fresh order and rehearing of the matter to facilitate a change of opinion on merits. The Tribunal seems to have transgressed its jurisdiction in dealing with the review petition as if it was hearing an original application. This aspect has also not been noticed by the High Court."
7. Existence of an error apparent on the face of the record is sine qua non for reviewing the order. The review applicant has failed to bring out any error apparent on the face of the order under review.
8. On the power of the Tribunal to review its own orders, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down clear guidelines in its 8 RA 2/2024 in OA 543/2019 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 its 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 9 RA 2/2024 in OA 543/2019 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. In view of the law laid down in the above extracted judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we do not find any merit in the review petition. The Review Application is dismissed, accordingly.
(M. SWAMINATHAN) (VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI)
MEMBER(J) MEMBER(A)
21.03.2024
mas