Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Union Of India vs Rajeev Narayan on 13 February, 2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH
Review Application No. 332/00031/2024
In Re
Original Application No. 332/00017/2013
This, the 13th day of February, 2025
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR OJHA, MEMBER (J),
HON'BLE MR. PANKAJ KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Information &
Broadcasting New Delhi.
2. Prasar Bharati (India's Public Service Broadcaster) through its
Chairman.
3. Director General, All India Radio, Akashvani Bhawan, New Delhi.
4. Assistant Lucknow. Director General (CR-1) All India Radio,
Lucknow.
....Applicants/Respondents.
By Advocate: Ms. Prayagmati Gupta.
VERSUS
1. Rajeev Narayan, S/o Sri Jangjeet Singh Verma, aged about 50
years, R/o Village Nandpur, Post Dhatri, and District Firojabad
(Earlier in District Mainpuri) Lucknow. & presently residing at A-
6 Ashok Vihar, Lucknow.
....Respondent/Applicant.
By Advocate: Shri Dharmendra Awasthi.
O R D E R (ORAL)
PER HON'BLE JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR OJHA, MEMBER (J) Heard learned counsel for the review applicants, learned counsel for the opposite parties and perused the records.
2. Delay condoned.
3. Review Applicants have prayed for review of the judgment and order dated 21.05.2024 passed in OA No.17 of 2013 in re: Rajeev Narayan vs. Union of India & Others, whereby OA was disposed of with the following directions:-
"Accordingly, OA is allowed. Impugned removal order dated 03.05.2012 and appellate order dated 17.08.2012 (Annexure No.1) are quashed. Liberty is granted to the respondents to proceed afresh against the applicant in accordance with law and as per rules. The said exercise Page 1 of 3 shall be completed within four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and decision so taken shall be communicated to the applicant forthwith."
4. In the matter of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. State Tax Officer (1) & Anr. with other connected matters [2023 INSC 963], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the following principles:
"16. The gist of the afore-stated decisions is that: -
(i) A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record.
(ii) A judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.
(iii) 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 record justifying the court to exercise its power of review.
(iv) In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected."
(v) A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise."
(vi) Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided.
(vii) An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.
(viii) Even the change in law or subsequent decision/ judgment of a co-ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.
5. From the perusal of aforesaid legal proposition of law propounded by Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is evident that order can be reviewed, inter-alia, on the ground of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record.
6. Learned counsel for the review applicants argued that cross- examination of Tehsildar, who has submitted report of fake caste certificate does not seem to be feasible. Merits of the case has not been properly appreciated by the Tribunal.
7. Learned counsel for the opposite party vehemently opposed the aforesaid submissions.
8. Perusal of the record reveals that order sought to be reviewed has been passed on merits. It would be illegal/unjustified to rely upon the Page 2 of 3 report submitted by the Tehsildar without affording an opportunity of cross-examination of the original applicant.
9. Under the pretext of review, the Review Applicants cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided.
10. In view of above, order passed by this Tribunal with regard to quashing of impugned removal order dated 03.05.2012 and appellate order dated 17.08.2012 (Annexure No.1) and granting liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh against the applicant in accordance with law and as per rules is fully justified and within four corners of law, hence, it is not a case for an error apparent on the face of the record.
11. Thus, applying the aforesaid law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. State Tax Officer (1) & Anr. with other connected matters [2023 INSC 963], we are of the considered opinion that present case is not a case of error apparent on the face of record. Even if order is wrong/illegal, the same can be challenged before the superior Court.
12. In view of above, Review application is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
(Pankaj Kumar) (Justice Anil Kumar Ojha)
Member (A) Member (J)
Ak/-
Digitally signed by Amit Kumar
Amit Kumar Date: 2025.02.14 15:07:02
+05'30'
Page 3 of 3