Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sub-Hc Rajbir Singh vs The Commissioner Of Police on 23 December, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH RA No.71 of 2011 IN OA No.2138 of 2010 NEW DELHI THIS THE 23rd DAY OF DECEMBER, 2011 HONBLE DR. RAMESH CHANDRA PANDA, MEMBER (A) HONBLE DR. DHARAM PAUL SHARMA, MEMBER (J) Sub-HC Rajbir Singh s/o Shri Chander Ram, r/o Friends Colony, Bahadur Garh, Haryana. Applicant ( By Advocate : Shri Sachin Chauhan ) VERSUS 1. The Commissioner of Police, I.P. Estate, Police Headquarters, M.S.O. Building, New Delhi. 2. The Special Commissioner of Police, Armed Police, Through the Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, I.P. Estate, M.S.O. Building, New Delhi. 3. Dy. Commissioner of Police, 1st Bn. DAP: Delhi, Through Police Headquarters, I.P. Estate, M.S.O. Building, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate : Mrs.Sumedha Sharma ) O R D E R Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma, Member (J) :
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By this Review Application, the applicant seeks a review of the order dated 17.2.2011 passed by this Tribunal in OA No.2138/2010 and praying for granting the relief claimed in Para 8 of the OA to the applicant viz., setting aside of impugned orders at Annexures A/1 to A/4 with all consequential benefits, including seniority, promotion and pay and allowances.
3. Vide order dated 17.2.2011, whose review is being sought the Original Application was dismissed holding that the applicant had not made out a case calling for the Tribunals intervention in the matter.
4. The grounds on which review is being sought are mentioned by the applicant in Para 8 of the Review Application. There are 19 grounds mentioned in para 8 of the Review Application in Clauses A to S. In
5. In Clauses A & B, it has been submitted by the Review Applicant that Tribunal made a mistake in concluding that applicant admitted his mistake before the disciplinary authority in the OR and ignored the submissions made by the applicant before the disciplinary authority in writing which were in the form of reply to the statutory appeal. It has further been submitted that law of admission of a misconduct is quite clear that the same has to be specific and in writing and further unconditional and any averments or submission recorded by the disciplinary authority in the oral representation cannot be taken as admission of guilt and further the entire defence of the applicant be rebutted only on the basis of the recording of the disciplinary authority in the OR that too in his office. In all other remaining Clauses, namely C to S, the case of the applicant is that the Tribunal erred in appreciating the facts mentioned therein.
6. On careful perusal of Clauses A to S of Para 8 of the Review Application, it is found that what the Review Applicant is alleging is that the order whose review is being sought is an erroneous order based on incorrect appreciation of facts mentioned therein and seeks rehearing of the case afresh on merits. We are afraid that this is not permissible in the garb of a Review Application. If the Review Applicant feels that this Tribunal erred in its decision, the remedy lies in appeal thereagainst and not in a Review Application. The scope of review is a limited one, circumscribed by prescribed parameters such as error apparent on the fact of record and discovery of new facts/material. Even otherwise, this Tribunal cannot sit in appeal over its own orders. The Honble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Tarit Ranjan Dass, 2004 SCC (L&S) 160, has held as under :
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 hearing 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. In State of West Bengal and Others Vs. Kamal Sengupta and Another, 2008 (8) SCC 612, the Honble Supreme Court has in Para 15 thereof observed as under:-
The term `mistake or error apparent' by its very connotation signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC or Section 22(3)(f) of the Act. To put it differently an order or decision or judgment cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or on the ground that a different view could have been taken by the Court/Tribunal on a point of fact or law. In any case, while exercising the power of review, the concerned Court/Tribunal cannot sit in appeal over its judgment/decision.
8. Having given our careful consideration, we do not find a case for review of the order passed in the Original Application dated 17.2.2011 on the grounds as mentioned in Para 8 of the Review Application and the Review Application is accordingly dismissed.
(Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma) (Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda)
Member (J) Member (A)
/ravi/