Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Surendra Kumar Gupta vs Union Of India on 19 September, 2018
RESERVED
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCHALLAHABAD
Review Application 330/00044 of 2014
In
Original Application No. 921 of 2010
Dated: This the 194 dayof 2018.
PRESENT:
MEMBER (A)
HON'BLE MR. GOKUL CHANDRA PATI, U)
MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. RAKESH SAGAR JAIN,
Gupta,
Surendra Kumar Gupta S/o Late Mewalal
Nagar,Near GuruDwara (lnfront of Yadav Chatta),
R/o House No. 396/9, Shastri Nagar, Ranjeet
Kanpur Nagar.
Applicant
By Adv: ShriRam Rajßanjay Kumar.
VERSUS
Defence, Department of Defence
1. Union of India through its Secretary Ministry of
Production and Supplies, New Delhi -11.
Groups Head Quarters
2. The Additional Director General, Ordnance Factories 0.E.P.
"Ayudh Upaskar Bhawan" G.T. Road, Kanpur.
3. General Manager Ordnance Equipment Factory Kanpur.
...Respondents
By Adv: Shri S. N. Chatterji
ORDER
BY HON'BLE MR. RAKESHSAGAR JAIN, MEMBER (J)
1. This order disposes of the Review Application filed by the petitioner Surendra Kumar Gupta seeking review of the order dated 08.11.2013 whereby 0.A. 921/2010titled Surendra Kumar Gupta Vs. Union of India was disposed of.
2. In the 0.A., applicant had sought the relief of quashing order dated 05.05.2006 whereby he was removed from service with retrospective effect i.e. 24.03.2004 as well as the orders of appellate authority dated 11.08.2006 and 09.04.2010 whereby the penalty was confirmed.
3. The Tribunal disposed of the aforementioned 0.A. by holding that "14. Considering allthe facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion, that order of suspension of the applicant shall be deemed to have continued in force from the date of original order of termination i.e. 24.03.2004 and remained in force till the final order of termination dated 05.05.2006 passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Since, the applicant would be deemed to be under suspension during the above period of fresh inquiry, he was wrongly denied the subsistence allowance for such period.
15. Accordingly, the O.A. is partly allowed to the extent that the applicant is entitled to get subsistence allowance w.e.f. 24.03.2004 to 05.05.2006 and the date of termination shall be deemed to be the date of final order of competent authority i.e. 05.05.2006. No order as to Costs."
4. Applicant seeks review of the order dated 08.11.2013 and thereby has prayed that theorder disposing of the O.A. be set aside and thereafter set aside the order of the termination of his services and re-instatement in the services. The applicant seeks review of the order on the ground that since the complainant in the enquiry had denied the allegation in respect of the dispute, the termination of his services is not sustainable and that no medical report was produced and no Doctor was examined during the enquiry but yet the enquiry officer wrongly held that the charges were proved.
5. It may be noted that the case was called out but none appeared for the applicant. The case was passed over and was again called out but neither applicant nor advocate for applicant was present. Since, the applicant and/or his lawyer were not present and the O.A. pertained to the year 2010, we decided to proceed under Rule 15 of CAT (Procedure) Rules 1987.
the grounds
6. It is settled law that review jurisdiction is available only on Procedure, which prescribed under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil contains onlythree grounds -
record;
(0) mistake or error apparent onthe face of matter or evidence,
(ii) discovery of new and important due diligence, was not which, even after exercise of review petitioner or could within the knowledge of the the time when the order not be produced by him at sought to be reviewed was passed; and for any other sufficient reason.
(i) of review has been very succinctly laid down
7. The law governing the scope by the Hon'ble Court in:
others, (1999) 9 SCC 596, a I. Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa and for a fresh hearing, or review cannot be claimed or asked for merely taken earlier. That is arguments, or correction of an erroneous iew exercised only for correction of a to say, the power of review can be face without any patent error of law or fact which stares in the elaborate argument being needed for establishing it. Any other attempt, except an attempt to correct an apparent error, or an attempt not based on any ground set out in Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, would amount to an abuse of the liberty given to the Tribunal under the Act to review its judgment. Unionof lndia v. Tarit Ranjan Das, 2004 SCC (L&S) 160, the scope for review is rather limited, and it is not permissible for the forum hearing the review application toact as an appellate court in respect of the original order, by afresh order and rehearing the matter to facilitate a change of opinion on merits. IlI. Inder Chand Jain(Dead) Through Lrs, Vs.Motilal (Dead) Through Lrs.
Reported in (2009) 14 SCC 663, It is beyond any doubt or dispute that the review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law or pronounced, it should not be altered. It is also trite that exercise of inherent jurisdiction isnot invoked for reviewing anyorder. IV. Review is not appeal in disguised. In Lily Thomas Vs. Union of India, It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for correction a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers of of the statute dealing with the Can be evercised within the limits of power. The review cannot be treated ke an appeal in exercise disguise"
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Keeping in mind the principles
8. of the review petitioner and find us consider the claim above decisions, let the order has been made out by them for review of out whether a case Kumar Gupta Vs. 921/2010 titled Surendra dated 08.11.2013 whereby O.A. disposed of Union of India was R.A., records of OA No.921 of 2010 and the present
9. After going through the old applicant-review has more or less repeated his we have found that the Tribunal, vide order dated overruled by the pleas which have been application by the applicant that 08.11.2013(ibid). It has been averred in record as failed to appreciate the materials available on the Tribunal has appeal in contentions raised by him. A review is by no means an well as the erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies disguise whereby an on record, appreciation of evidence/ materials only for patent error. The appellate court, cannot be permitted being fully within the domain of the In areview petition, it is not opento to be advanced in the review petition.
evidence/materials and reach a different the Tribunal to re-appreciate the arrived at on appreciation of conclusion, even if that is possible. Conclusion were available on evidence/materials and contentions of the parties, which unless it is shown that there record,cannot be assailed in a review petition, the record or for some reason akin is an error apparent on the face of error, manifest on the thereto. The applicant has not shown any material which undermines its face of the order under review dated 08.11.2013, applicant-review soundness, or results in miscarriage of justice. If the remedy petitioner is not satisfied with the order passed by this Tribunal, not permissible for lies elsewhere. The scope of review is very limited. It is the Tribunal to act as an appellate court.
10 .Through this review application, the review applicant wants to re-open the permissible entire issue afresh which is not permissible in review. Review is record. The if there is an error of nrocedure apparent on the face of the order was passed after hearing both the parties and all the points were discussed in the judgment which is again taken by the applicant in the review application as such we found no error apparent on the face of record.
11 In the light of what has been discussed above, we do not find that the review application is covered by the aforementioned three grounds to justify a review of the order dated 08.11.2013. 12 .We do not find any valid ground to interfere. Thus, the review application is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Rakesh Sagar Jain) (Gokul Chandra Pati)
Member (U) Member (A)
/Shashi/