Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Sanjoy Sen vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 30 July, 2024
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA BENCH
KOLKATA
R.A.No. 350/14/2024 Date of order: 30.07.2024
(M.A.No.350/442/2024)
(M.A.No.350/443/2024)
(O.A.No.350/157/2024)
Coram :Hon'ble Mr. Anindo Majumdar, Administrative Member
Hon'ble Mr Rajnish Kumar Rai, Judicial Member
Sri Sanjoy Sen, Aadhaar No.874801605481,
Son of Late Nirmal Sen, aged about 60 years,
a permanent resident of AA 29 Ekush Satak
Apartment, Prafulla Kanan(W), West Rajarhat
Gopalpur(M), North 24 Parganas, Kolkata (WB),
Earlier Dy. Superintendent of Police, CBI ACB,
Kolkata, Nizam Palace & presently working at
CBI ACB, Visakhapatnam-530017, with effect
From 18.01.2022, under the Department of
Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel,
Public Grievances & Pension, Government of
India, belonging to Gr. "A" Service,
Sub: Disciplinary Proceeding
.............Applicant
- VERSUS -
1. UNION OF INDIA, through the Secretary,
Department of Personnel & Training,
under Ministry of Personnel, Pension
and Public Grievances, Government of
India, North Block, New Delhi;
2. UNDER SECRETARY, Department of
Personnel & Training, ADV-II, B, under
Ministry of Personnel, Pension & Public
Grievances, Government of India,
North Block, New Delhi - 110001;
3. DY. DIRECTOR (PERS), Central Bureau
Of Investigation, 5B, Lodhi Road,
10th Floor, Nizam Palace, 2nd MSO
Building, Kolkata-700020;
2
4. Dy. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE/
HEAD OF BRANCH, CBI ACB KOLKATA,
234/4, A.J.C. Bose Road, 14th Floor,
Nizam Palace, 2nd MSO Building,
Kolkata-700020;
5. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBI ACB
KOLKATA, 234/4, A.J.C. Bose Road, 14th Floor,
Nizam Palace, 2nd MSO Building,
Kolkata-700020;
6. SHRI ABHAY SINGH, INSPECTOR GENERAL OF
POLICE, Bhopal (Rural) Zone, C- Block,
Old Secretariat, Bhopal (M.P.)-462001 &
Inquiry Officer in the Departmental Inquiry
Proceeding;
7. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE/HEAD OF BRANCH,
CBI ACB Visakhapatnam, 1-83-21/4, MVP Colony,
Sector-8, Visakhapatnam-530017
...........Respondents
For the Applicant : Mr. K. Halder
For the Respondents : None
O R D E R (BY CIRCULATION)
Rajnish Kumar Rai, Judicial Member In the instant R.A., the applicant has sought for review/recall/modification/variation of the order dated 03.05.2024 passed by this Tribunal in M.A.No.442 and 443 of 2024 arising out of O.A.350/157/2024 and prayed for appropriate direction/directions as this Tribunal deems fit and proper.
2. We have perused the R.A. along with the documents placed on record. This Tribunal vide order dated 06.02.2024 disposed of the O.A.No.350/157/2024 by recording the following order:-
3
"Considering the aforesaid submission, we deem it fit to dispose of this original application, at admission stage, with a direction upon the respondent/competent authority to dispose of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant and consider the pending representation of the applicant dated 08.02.2022/15.11.2023 as per the extant rules, within a period of 04 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order."
Thereafter, the respondents of O.A. have filed M.A.No.442/2024 for extension of 6 months' time for execution of the order passed in the O.A. along with an application for condonation of delay i.e. M.A.No.443/2023 which were also disposed of vide order dated 03.05.2024 by granting 3 months' time to implement the order of this Tribunal passed in O.A. which will be over by 3rd August, 2024. Therefore, only a few days are left to implement the order.
3. As per rules, R.A. can be entertained only when there is any glaring mistake on the face of the record which is not the case of the applicant in the instant R.A. Moreover, both the M.As were disposed of on 03.05.2024 on merit and review of such order is not permissible under the extant rules.
4. It is worth to mention that the scope of review of an order passed by a court/Tribunal is very limited and the applicants cannot seek review for correction of the view taken earlier or for rehearing of the matter. The scope for Review Application is clearly defined in various orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the case of State of West Bengal & others v. Kamal Sengupta and another (2008) 8 SCC 612 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held :-
"Tribunal can exercise the powers of a Civil Court in relation to matters enumerated in clauses (a) to
(i) of sub-section (3) of Section 22 of the Administrative Tribunals Act including the power of reviewing its decision. By referring to the power of a Civil Court to review its judgment/decision under Section 114 CPC read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC."4
The Hon'ble Supreme Court further laid down the principles subject to which the Tribunal can exercise the power of review. In this regard, it is appropriate to refer to para 28 of the said judgment which reads as under :-
"(i) The power of the 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 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 specified grounds.
(iv) An error which is not self-evident and which can be discovered by a long process of reasoning, cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of record justifying exercise of power under Section 22(3)(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 larger Bench of the Tribunal or of a superior Court.
(vii) 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.
(viii) 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."
5. In Union of India v/s Tarit Ranjan Das 2004 SCC (L&S) 160 the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the order passed in Review Application held in paragraph 13 as under:
"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 reason 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 and rehearing of the matter to facilitate a change of opinion on merits. The Tribunal seems to have transgressed its jurisdiction in 5 dealing with review petition as if it was hearing original application. This aspect has also not been noticed by the High Court."
6. Further, Hon'ble Apex Court in R.A.(Crl.)No.453 of 2012 [Writ Petition(Crl.) 135 of 2008 Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati and Ors. decided on 08.08.2013] held as under:-
"(13) In a review petition, it is not open to the Court to re-appreciate the evidence and reach a different conclusion, even if that is possible. Conclusion arrived at on appreciation of evidence cannot be assailed in a review petition unless it is shown that there is an error apparent on the face of the record or for some reason akin thereto. This Court, in Kerala State Electricity Board vs.Hitech Electrothermics &Hydropower Ltd. &Ors., (2005) 6 SCC 651, held as under:
"10........In a review petition it is not open to this Court to re-appreciate the evidence and reach a different conclusion, even if that is possible. Learned counsel for the Board at best sought to impress us that the correspondence exchanged between the parties did not support the conclusion reached by this Court. We are afraid such a submission cannot be permitted to be advanced in a review petition. The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court. If on appreciation of the evidence produced, the court records a finding of fact and reaches a conclusion that conclusion cannot be assailed in a review petition unless it is shown that there is an error apparent on the face of the record or for some reason akin thereto. It has not been contended before us that there is any error apparent on the face of the record. To permit the review petitioner to argue on question of appreciation of evidence would amount to converting a review petition into an appeal in disguise."
14) Review is not re-hearing of an original matter. The power of review cannot be confused with appellate power which enables a superior court to correct all errors committed by a subordinate court. A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to re-open concluded adjudications. This Court, in Jain Studios Ltd. vs. Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd., (2006) 5 SCC 501, held as under:
11.So far as the grievance of the applicant on merits is concerned, the learned counsel for the opponent is right in submitting that virtually the applicant seeks the same relief which had been sought at the time of arguing the main matter and had been negatived. Once such a prayer had been refused, no review petition would lie which would convert rehearing of the original matter. It is settled law that the power of review cannot be confused 6 with appellate power which enables a superior court to correct all errors committed by a subordinate court. It is not rehearing of an original matter. A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. The power of review can be exercised with extreme care, caution and circumspection and only in exceptional cases.
12. When a prayer to appoint an arbitrator by the applicant herein had been made at the time when the arbitration petition was heard and was rejected, the same relief cannot be sought by an indirect method by filing a review petition.
Such petition, in my opinion, is in the nature of "second innings" which is impermissible and unwarranted and cannot be granted."
15) Review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC. In review jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the view of the judgment cannot be the ground for invoking the same. As long as the point is already dealt with and answered, the parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment in the guise that an alternative view is possible under the review jurisdiction."
7. In Parsion Devi &Ors. vs. Sumitri Devi &Ors., (1997) 8 SCC 715 theHon'ble Apex Court opined that:-
"9.Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule I CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected. A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise".
(Emphasis added)
8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indrachand Jain Vs Moti Lal (2009 14 SCC 663) has observed the scope and limitation of the review application. Relevant portion of the said judgment is quoted herein below:-
"33. The High Court had rightly noticed the review jurisdiction of the court, which is as under:
"The law on the subject- exercise of power of review, as propounded by the Apex Court and various other High Courts may be summerised as herein under:7
(i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
(ii) Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the fact of record is found. But error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long -drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.
(iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits.
(iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient reason which is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an advocate.
(v) An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit."
9. In view of the above, the instant review application does not come under the scope of review. Therefore, this R.A. is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Rajnish Kumar Rai) (Anindo Majumdar) Judicial Member Administrative Member Sb