Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, I.A.S. S/O Shri ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) (Through ... on 6 March, 2007
ORDER V.K. Agnihotri, Member (A)
1. This Review Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 22(3) (f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 for review of the order of this Tribunal dated 17.01.2007 passed in OA No. 1386/2006.
2. Since one of the members of the Bench which had heard the OA and pronounced the order has retired, the Review Application was placed before a Bench, one of the members of which was also the member of the Bench, which had pronounced the order in the O.A.
3. In this Review Application, the applicant has put forth the following arguments in support of his claim for review of the order dated 17.01.2007 passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 1386/2006 (supra):
The impugned order dated 17.01.2007 [in OA No. 1386/2006 (supra)] and impugned disciplinary proceedings dated 06.07.1988 are inconsistent with mandatory Rule 6A (2) of the I.A.S. (Recruitment) Rules, 1954. The applicant had specifically and vehemently made this submission in respect of the impugned disciplinary proceedings before this Tribunal on 19.12.2006. However, the said submission has neither been noted nor considered by this Tribunal.
Rule 11 of the I.A.S. (Probation) Rules, 1954 quoted in para 73 of the impugned order dated 17.01.2007 (supra) is not applicable to the applicant. But on the contrary, the applicant [who belongs to 1982 batch of the Indian Administrative Service (I.A.S., for short)] is governed by unamended Rule 11 of the I.A.S. (Probation) Rules, 1954 contained in All India Service Manual, Part-II, Fifth Edition (corrected upto 01.08.1984), Pages 48-60. The two Rules are materially different in view of the amendments subsequently made. In this context, the applicant has further stated that the respondents had filed counter, containing a copy of the amended Rules ibid., belatedly and the applicant was not given an opportunity to file a rejoinder.
The applicant has averred in the course of his oral submissions that even though several of the pleadings made by the applicant have been mentioned in the order but no findings on each one of them have been given. In particular, the applicant has referred to several paras (relating to Grounds) of his OA and stated that the impugned order dated 17.01.2007 (supra) has neither referred to nor considered those grounds.
The applicant, during his oral submissions, stated that he has cited several authorities, as follows, which were not discussed and differentiated by this Tribunal in its impugned order:
1. State of Punjab v. V.K. Khanna AIR 2001 SC 343;
2. Zunjarrao B. Nagarkar v. Union of India ;
3. Partap Singh v. State of Punjab ;
4. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal ;
5. D.J.S.A. v. State of Gujarat ;
6. Arun Vyas v. Anita Vyas ;
7. Dr. U.N. Biswas v. Union of India 1998 (8) SLR 8;
8. A.K. Dutta v. Union of India 82 CWN 539;
9. A.V.S. Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1988 (7) ATC 119; and
10. Virendra Prasad v. Union of India 1988 (8) ATC 190.
4. We have heard the applicant in person and perused the records.
5. As stated in Rule 1 of Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, an application for review can be filed where there is discovery of new and important matter or evidence, which, after exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the aggrieved person or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was passed or where some mistake or error apparent exists on the face of the records.
6. Scope of Review in judicial proceedings has also been carefully defined by the courts over the years. The option of review must thus be exercised within the limitations prescribed under Section 114 and Order XLVII of CPC. Going into the merits of the case, without arriving at a finding as to how error apparent on the face of the record was committed is erroneous. In review jurisdiction, Court is not bound to consider correctness of all previous orders. New facts occurring after the original decision cannot be used for reviewing the case. Right to review is not a right to appeal. Central Administrative Tribunal cannot act as an appellate court while reviewing the original order. A review, by no means, is an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. Mere repetition through different counsel of old and overruled arguments and fighting over again the same battle which has been fought and lost, under the review label, is not permissible [Union of India and Ors. v. B. Valluvan and Ors. 2006 (8) SCC 686; Avinash Hansraj Gajbhiye v. Official Liquidator v. Pharma. P. Ltd. 2006 SCC L.COM 98; Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan Das 2004 SCC (L&S) 160; K. Ajit Babu and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. ; Union of India and Ors. v. Shri Shyam Deo Singh and Ors. 1996 (2) SLJ 651; S. Nagaraj and Ors. etc. v. State of Karnataka and Anr. etc. 1994 SCC (L&S) 320; Sow. Chandra Kanta and Anr. v. Sheik Habib ; and Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Anantpur ].
7. We find that in this Review Application, the applicant has failed to provide any new evidence, which was not within his knowledge earlier. He has also failed to establish that there is some mistake or error apparent on the face of the records. Hence, based on the material on the basis of which the matter has already been adjudicated earlier, this Tribunal is not in a position to re-appreciate the evidence and sit in appeal over its own order. In the circumstances, if the applicant is not satisfied with the order of this Tribunal, he should seek legal remedies elsewhere.
8. In the result, for the reasons mentioned above, the Review Application fails and is accordingly dismissed in limine at the admission stage itself. There will be no order as to costs.