Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Anil Kumar vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi Through on 26 August, 2015
CENTRAL ADMINSITRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI RA 203/15 OA 3091/2014 This the 26th day of August, 2015 Honble Mr.V.Ajay Kumar, Member (J) Honble Mr. P.K.Basu, Member (A) Anil Kumar Aged -53 years S/o late Shri R.N.Varma Working as Superintendent Department of Women & Child Development Govt. of NCT of Delhi K.G.Marg, New Delhi R/o C-1, Sewa Kutir Staff Flats, BB Marg Kingsway Camp Delhi -09 ... Applicant VERSUS
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi through The Chief Secretary New Secretariat, Players Building I.P.Estate, New Delhi
2. The Director Department of Women & Child Development Government of NCT of Delhi 1, Canning Lane, K.G.Marg New Delhi . Respondents.
(in circulation) By Honble Mr.P.K.Basu, Member (A) This Review application has been filed against the order dated 01.07.2015 passed by us in OA No.3091/2014. The grounds cited in brief are the following :-
(i) Oral order of the Chief Secretary is illegal and, therefore, our observation in para 7 of the order that it is common administrative practice in such emergent situations not to wait for the niceties of procedure and let law and order problems go out of control as also the facts noted by us in the para that order dated 23.05.2014 approved by the Chief Secretary was further ratification.
(ii) Extension of suspension was not done within the stipulated time of 90 days and since co-ordinate bench judgment in the case of Dr. Hari Prasad Vs. Union of India and others held that reviewing the suspension order within the 90 days is not sufficient but that order of extension should be communicated before the expiry of the 90 days and since the bench has differed with this, the matter should be referred to full bench as per the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of SI Roop Lal Vs. Union of India & Ors, in stead of dismissing the Original application of the applicant.
(iii) Our observation in para 8 of the order that the conduct of the applicant in the OA was not covered with glory tantamounts to holding charges proved and this would definitely influence the department while conducting the investigation inquiry.
(iv) The scope of Review Application before this Tribunal has been discussed in several judgments of the Honble Supreme Court and some of these are cited below:-
(i) Gopal Singh Vs. State Cadre Forest Officers Association & Others [AIR 2007 SC 1878]
(ii) Anil Kumar Rath Vs. State of Orissa and others [2000 SCC (L&S) 192]
(iii) Ms. Thungabhadra Industries Limited Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [AIR 1964 SC 1372]
(iv) AIR 2002 SC 2537 (Subhas Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another)
(v) State of West Bengal and others Vs. Kamal Sengupta and another (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 735
2. The crux of the ratio laid down in these judgments is that review is not an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision has been re-heard and corrected but lies only for patent error. The error has to be specific and apparent. The Tribunal cannot write a second order and review its own judgment. Clearly, the ground on which the review is filed does not satisfy the principle laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in its various judgments and the Review Applicant does not indicate any apparent error on the face of the record. It rather seeks a rehearing of the matter which is not permissible. Review Application is, therefore, dismissed.
(P.K.Basu) (V.Ajay Kumar) Member (A) Member (J) /uma/