Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Sandeep Shrivastava vs Union Of India on 9 July, 2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR
REVIEW APPLICATION NO.200/00018/2015
(in OA No.200/00251/15)
Jabalpur, this Thursday, the 9th day of July, 2015
SHRI G.P.SINGHAL, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Sandeep Shrivastava, Son of Late Shri R.S. Lal Shrivastava Aged about 43 years, Head T.T.E. Jabalpur Division, Western Central Railway, presently posted in the office of Station Superintendent, Katni (M.P.) Resident of Dr. Subba Rao Lane Shastri Colony, Venkat Ward, Katni,
M.P. Pin 483501 -Applicant
V e r s u s
1. Union of India, Through Secretary Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, Railway Board, New Delhi-110001
2. The General Manager West Central Railway Jabalpur (M.P.) PIN 482001
3. The Chief Commercial Manager, West Central Railway Jabalpur (M.P.) PIN 482001
4. The Divisional Railway Manager, Jabalpur Division, West Central Railway, Jabalpur (M.P.) PIN 482001
5. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager Jabalpur Division, WCR Jabalpur (MP) PIN 482001
6. Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Senior Divisional Commercial Manager Jabalpur Division, WCR, Jabalpur (M.P.) PIN 482001
7. Mr. Manoj Sharma, CTI (Details)/Katni Jabalpur Division, West Central Railway, Jabalpur (MP) Pin 482001 - Respondents
ORDER (in circulation)
This application has been filed by the applicant to review the order dated 18.06.2015 passed by the Tribunal in Original Application No.200/00251/2015.
2. The applicant in the Original Application No.200/00251/2015 had prayed for the following reliefs:-
8.1 This Honble Tribunal may kindly quash the suspension order No.SF-1 No.JBP/C/TC/KTE (S.S) 14 dated 09.12.2014 as it has passed more than 100 days, which is contrary to the law laid down by Honble Supreme Court in the recently passed decision in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India & Anr.:
14 We, therefore, direct that the currency of a Suspension Order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the Memorandum of Charges/Charge sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the Memorandum of Charges/Charge sheet is served a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. 8.2 This Honble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to pay the full salary of the whole suspension period by considering that period as duty period because, the Respondent No.6 (Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Sr. DCM/JBP) has actually suspended the Applicant with mal intention to coerce, to penalize, to disrepute, to humiliate as well as to deprive him of legal salary (remuneration), which is clear with this facts that thought the salary for the months of December 2014 is passed Rs.48260/- yet the Applicant was paid NIL salary at the direction of Respondent No.6. It is clear from this that the main aim of the Respondent No.6 (Rajesh Sharma, Sr. DCM/JBP) by suspending the Applicant is to break the financial back bone of the Applicant and to make him kneel down and compelled him to withdraw the complaints. Thus, it is clear that the Respondent No.6 (Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Sr. DCM/JBP) has suspended the Applicant maliciously and revengefully and it is mere a superficial excuse to cover up the illegality, that the Applicant has been suspended for not working train. If the reason is not working in trains then why was the Applicant suspended at the place of holding inquiry as in this case there must be enough evidences other wise at what basis the 06 charge sheets were served to the applicant. More than 100 days of suspension is capable to prove that the Respondents have spoken lie to misguide the Honble Tribunal, the actual reason is to coerce, to penalize, to disrepute, to humiliate as well as to deprive the Applicant of his legal salary, which is a wider affect, not only on him but also on his family.
8.3 The Applicant requests to the Honble Tribunal to direct the Respondents to provide the following documents within one month either to the applicant or to the Honble Tribunal before holding the inquiry in all the Six charge sheets, because the Respondent No.6 (Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Sr. DCM/JBP) is deliberately not providing this basic documents because he knew very well that these documents are false, forged, fabricated, tampered and incorrect which has been prepared by Respondent No.7 (Mr. Manoj Sharma, CTI (D) with mal-intention to cause inquiry to the Applicant, which is a punishable offence under section 167 of IPC.
8.3.1 Details of Documents needed for Defense and Inquiry S.No. Name of the Document Concerned Date (From-To) Reason & basis for the Demand
1. Copy of both sides of duty Details of Amenity Staffs
03.08.2014- 09.12.2014 Basic Documents on which the charges are framed and which reference is given in the charge sheet
2. All the Letters written by CTI (D)/KTE Mr. Manoj Sharma to Sr.DCM / JBP Mr. Rajesh Sharma concerning to Mr. Sandeep Shrivastav All the letters written between 25.07.2014 to 15.03.2015 Basic Documents on which the charges are framed and which reference is given in the charge sheet
3. Attendance Sheet of All the Staffs From August 2014- December 2014 Basic and essential Documents required for Defense
4. HTC diary of all the three shifts.
25.07.2014-31.01.2014 Basic and essential Documents required for Defense 8.4 After the procurement of the above mentioned documents, the Honble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondents to hold the inquiry within 03 months in all Six charge sheets dated 7.08.2014, 04.09.2014, 05.09.2014, 10.09.2014, 15.09.2014 & 19.09.2014, for which the Respondent No.6 (Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Sr. DCM/JBP) is deliberately avoiding because he fears that on the basis of evidences emerge during the inquiry, the Applicant would be in the position to initiate criminal proceedings against him under Section 120 (a), Sec. 166, Sec. 167 Sec.211, Sec. 499 & Section 500 of Indian Penal Code.
8.5 As the Applicant has given enough evidences and proofs that Respondents No.6 (Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Sr. DCM/JBP) is malicious and revengeful to the applicant, because the Applicant has lodged various complaints against him and in retaliation and desperation the Respondents No.6 is victimizing the Applicant under his whims & fancies, official vendetta and official arbitrariness. As the respondents No.6 is an interested party as well as he is prejudice, partial, malicious and revengeful to the Applicant, so he ought not to be act as disciplinary authority as per demands of Principle of Nature Justice. So the applicant requests that the Honble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to prevent the respondent No.6 (Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Sr. DCM/JBP from working as disciplinary authority in all the cases which have been erected maliciously, against the applicant.
8.6 This, Honble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to imposing heavy cost upon the Respondent authorities who are continuously abusing their post and power with a mal-intention of spoiling the future of the Applicant and inflicting irreparable damage and loses to him and his family.
8.7 This Honble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to issue any other writ or directions looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and be pleased to awarded cost of litigation in favour of the applicant.
3. Since the applicant had claimed multiple reliefs in the aforementioned Original Application, as narrated above, the same was disposed of with the following observations:
(4). It is clear from perusal of Para 8 of the Original Application that the applicant has sought multiple reliefs in this Original Application which is not permissible as per Rule 10 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987. Therefore, the matter is being considered only in regard to limited relief mentioned in Para 8.1 and 8.2 regarding suspension order. Since suspension order has already been revoked vide the order dated 16.06.2015, the cause of seeking this relief has ceased to exist and therefore Original Application has become infructuous. However, in regard to applicants grievance pertaining to grant of salary for entire period of suspension, as well as treating the suspension period as regular service, the applicant shall be at liberty to file representation to the competent authority of the respondents in this matter. On such representations being filed, the competent authority of the respondents shall consider and decide it, with a reasoned and speaking order, within a period of 30 days from the date of its submission.
4. From perusal of the order under review it is found that the aforesaid Original Application No.200/00251/15 was disposed of after hearing the applicant, in person, and learned counsel of the respondents and after perusal of the pleadings of the respective parties.
5. In the garb of the present Review Application the applicant is praying for rehearing of his Original Application by raising new grounds to challenge the action of the respondents, which were not agitated at the time of final hearing, which is not permissible.
6. It may be noted that scope of review under the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1, CPC, which provision is analogous to Section 22 (3) (f) of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, as held by the Honble Supreme Court is very limited. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Meera Bhanja (Smt.) Vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt.), (1995)1 SCC 170 referring to certain earlier judgments, observed that an error apparent on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record. An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. Where an alleged error is far from self-evident and if it can be established, it has to be established by lengthy and complicated arguments, such an error can not be cured in a review proceeding.
7. The power of review available to this Tribunal is the same as has been given to a Court under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. The apex court has clearly stated in Ajit Kumar Rath Vs. State of Orissa and others, (1999) 9 SCC 596 that: a review cannot be claimed or asked for merely for a fresh hearing or arguments or correction of an erroneous view taken earlier, that is to say, the power of review can be exercised only for correction of a patent error of law or fact which stares in the face without any elaborate argument being needed for establishing it. This Tribunal can not review its order unless the error is plain and apparent. It has clearly been further held by the apex court in the said case that: [A]ny other attempt, except an attempt to correct an apparent error or an attempt not based on any ground set out in Order 47, would amount to an abuse of the liberty given to the Tribunal under the Act to review its judgment.
8. It is also settled principle of law that the Tribunal cannot act as an appellate court for reviewing the original order. This proposition of law is supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Tarit Ranjan Das, 2004 SCC (L&S) 160 wherein their lordships have held as under:
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.
9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of State of West Bengal and others Vs. Kamal Sengupta and another, (2008)2 SCC (L&S) 735 scanned various earlier judgments and summarized the principle laid down therein, which reads thus:
35. The principles which can be culled out from the above-noted judgments are:
(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 CPC.
(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.
10. I am, therefore, of the considered view that the law noticed hereinabove is squarely applicable in the present case and since no error apparent on the face of record has been pointed out or established, warranting review of the order, the present Review Application is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed.
11. In the result, the Review Application is dismissed at the circulation stage itself.
(G.P.Singhal) Administrative Member kc 1 RA No.200/00018/2015 Page 1 of 7