Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sunil Kumar Jha vs Union Of India & Others on 27 February, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI Review Application No.34/2012 Misc. Application Nos.298/2012 in Original Application No.3966 of 2011 Heard/decided on : 27th February, 2012 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE DR. RAMESH CHANDRA PANDA, MEMBER (A) Sunil Kumar Jha Applicant ( By Dr. Sumant Bhardwaj, Advocate ) Versus Union of India & others Respondents O R D E R Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman:
The applicant seeks review of our order dated 11.11.2011. Inasmuch as, the application for review has been filed beyond the period of limitation, it is accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay filed under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
2. Even though the Original Application came to be dismissed in limine, but the same is by a reasoned order. The facts may not be reiterated, having been already given in all their required details in our order dated 11.11.2011. Suffice it may, however, to mention that the applicant vide Presidential order dated 14.09.2010 was dismissed from service following his conviction and sentence in a criminal case of corruption. During the course of hearing of the OA, the only point that came to be urged before us was that in view of the explanatory note 2 to rule 19(i) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, a copy of skeleton inquiry report held in the matter should be furnished along with the show cause notice referring only to the extenuating circumstances to the individual concerned, and inasmuch as, along with the show cause notice the said skeleton inquiry report was not sent to the applicant, the impugned order would be vitiated, and, therefore, needed to be set aside. In para 5 of our order, we have mentioned that on checking up the existence of the explanatory note relied upon by the learned counsel representing the applicant, the same was not found in the Swamys Compilation of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, and further that the counsel was unable to clarify as to from where the explanatory note, reproduced in the OA, had been picked up. It is now pleaded and so urged that time was sought to produce the OM dated 11.03.1987, but the same was not granted, and that the said OM has been consistently referred in all the books published by Muthuswami on Disciplinary Proceedings for Central Government Staff, in chapter 10 Disciplinary Proceedings A Digest under sub-heading 12 Special Procedure in certain cases (page No.325 of 11th Edn and 303 of 6th Edn.). Copy of the said OM has not been even now placed on records. It would not be, however, the issue as regards existence of the OM, as surely, irrespective of the existence of the OM aforesaid, it has been held, for the reasons mentioned in the order, that no prejudice in any case had been caused to the applicant. There are other reasons also which have been given in detail in dismissing the OA, including that the applicant had never raised the point as mentioned above in his representation to the show cause notice received by him, when he was dismissed from service after his conviction and sentence. There are no arguments as to how the case of the applicant, for reason other than existence or otherwise of the OM aforesaid, as mentioned in the order, would need reconsideration.
3. Before we may part with this order, we may mention that at the very outset, in para 4 of our order, we have mentioned, All that has been urged in support of the Original Application is that.. Para 10 of the order reads as follows:
10. Before we may part with this order, we may mention that learned counsel for the applicant has raised no other issue whatsoever. Indeed, in the Original Application a number of grounds have been raised, but courts and tribunals are not required to refer to such grounds even though taken in the OA on which no arguments may have been addressed. The experience of the Tribunal shows that in some cases, after loosing the case in the Tribunal, a plea is raised in the High Court that there were certain points taken in the OA, which were canvassed during the course of arguments but the Tribunal did not advert to the same resulting in either giving the applicant permission to seek review or some time even in setting aside of that order and remitting the matter back to the Tribunal. The Higher Judicial Fora where such a plea is raised are sometimes inclined to go into the arguments like that the points were raised in the Tribunal but not discussed, and, therefore, we reiterate that we have specifically mentioned that no other point was raised. Despite all this, it is mentioned in the review application that there are points which have been urged, but have not been taken into consideration. It is difficult to join issues with the counsel on such matters. All that we may comment is that if it is mentioned in the order that no other points were urged, the same has to be taken as correct. Further, the facts mentioned in the review application have been verified by an affidavit by the applicant, and not by the counsel. If it was to be the case of the counsel that he had argued other points, it is he who should have filed the affidavit, and not the applicant. In the affidavit aforesaid, it is not even mentioned that the applicant was present when the case was argued.
4. The review application is dismissed.
( Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda ) ( V. K. Bali )
Member (A) Chairman
/as/