Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
R Shanmugam vs M/O Railways on 26 June, 2025
1 RA 17/2025
in OA 1880/2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
RA/310/00017/2025
IN
OA/310/01880/2016
Dated this the 26th day of June, Two Thousand Twenty Five
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR.M.SWAMINATHAN, MEMBER(J)
AND
HON'BLE MR.SANGAM NARAIN SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER(A)
R. Shanmugam,
S/o V. Rajagopal,
No. 51, Lakshmi Street
Rasipuram,
Namakkal District .. Applicant
By Advocate M/s L. Chandrakumar
Vs.
1.Union of India
rep by the Senior Divisional Engineer / Co. ord.,
Office of the Divisional Railway Manager,
Southern Railway, Salem Division,
Salem.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager,
Southern Railway, Salem Division,
Salem.
3. The Principal Chief Engineer,
Southern Railway Headquarters Office,
Park Town, Chennai.
4. The General Manager,
Southern Railway Headquarters Office,
Park Town, Chennai .. Respondents
By Advocate Mr. A. Abdul Ajees
2 RA 17/2025
in OA 1880/2016
ORDER (BY CIRCULATION)
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member) The instant Review Application (RA) has been filed by the applicant in the OA 1880 of 2016 under Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, and is dealt with under Section 22 (3)
(f) of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, read with Rule 24 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987.
2. As no hearing is considered necessary, the Review Application is being disposed of under circulation as per Rule 17(3) of the C.A.T. (Procedure) Rules.
3. The applicant is seeking review of the order, dated 26.03.2025, passed by the Tribunal dismissing the said OA No.1880 of 2016 as follows:
"21. After considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, along with the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited above, we are of the opinion that the Appellate Authority, as directed by the Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal, objectively reviewed the applicant's appeal, providing a personal hearing before upholding the compulsory retirement imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. The Revisionary Authority has noted that the case was examined by several officers at various stages and that no new facts were presented that could mitigate the 3 RA 17/2025 in OA 1880/2016 charges. As a result, the Revision Petition filed by the applicant was dismissed. Therefore, we are of the considered view that neither authority has committed any error in passing their respective orders that would warrant our interference.
22. In the result, the OA is is devoid of merits and the same deserves to be dismissed.
Accordingly, it is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs."
4. We have perused the RA. It appears that under the garb of review, the review applicant is trying to re-argue the matter, which is not permissible.
5. The scope of review lies in a narrow compass, as prescribed under Order XLVII, Rule (1) of the CPC. None of the grounds raised in the RA brings it within the scope and purview of review. If in the opinion of the review applicant, the order passed by the Tribunal is erroneous, the remedy lies elsewhere.
6, In the case of Meera Bhanja (Smt) Vs. Nirmala Kumari Chaudhury (Smt) (1995) 1 SCC 170), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:-
4 RA 17/2025in OA 1880/2016
"In the present case the approach of the Division Bench dealing with the review proceedings clearly shows that it has overstepped its jurisdiction under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC by merely styling the reasoning adopted by the earlier Division Bench as suffering from a patent error. It would not become a patent error or error apparent by doing so. The Review Bench has re-appreciated the entire evidence, sat almost as court of appeal and has reversed the findings reached by the earlier Division Bench. Even if the earlier Division Bench's findings were found to be erroneous, it would be no ground for reviewing the same, as that would be the function of an appellate court...."
7. Again in the case of Union of India Vs. Tarit Ranjan Das (2004) SCC (L&S) 160), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:-
"13. The Tribunal passed the impugned order by reviewing the earlier order. A bare reading of the two orders shows that the order in review application was in complete variation and disregard of the earlier order and the strong as well as sound reasons contained therein whereby the original application was rejected. The scope for review is rather limited and it is not permissible for the forum hearing the review application to act as an appellate authority in respect of the original order by a fresh order and rehearing of the matter to facilitate a change of opinion on merits. The Tribunal seems to have transgressed its jurisdiction in dealing with the review petition as if it was hearing an original application. This aspect has also not been noticed by the High Court."5 RA 17/2025 in OA 1880/2016
8. Existence of an error apparent on the face of the record is sine qua non for reviewing the order. The review applicant has failed to bring out any error apparent on the face of the order under review.
9. On the power of the Tribunal to review its own orders, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down clear guidelines in its judgment, in the case of State of West Bengal & others Vs. Kamal Sengupta and another, [2008 (3) AISLJ 209], stating therein that "the Tribunal can exercise powers of a Civil Court in relation to matter enumerated in clauses (a) to (i) of sub- section (3) of Section (22) of Administrative Tribunals Act, including the power of reviewing its decision."
At Para (28) of the judgment, the principles culled out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are as under:-
"(i) The power of Tribunal to review its order/decision under Section 22(3) (f) of the Act is akin/analogous to the power of a Civil Court under Section 114 read with order 47 Rule (1) of CPC.
(ii) The Tribunal can review its decision on either of the grounds enumerated in order 47 Rule 1 and not otherwise.
(iii) The expression "any other sufficient reason"
appearing in Order 47 Rule 1 has to be interpreted in the light of other specific grounds 6 RA 17/2025 in OA 1880/2016
(iv) An error which is not self-evident and which can be discovered by a long process of reasoning, cannot be treated as a error apparent in the fact of record justifying exercise of power under Section 22(2) (f).
(v) An erroneous order/decision cannot be corrected in the guise of exercise of power of review.
(vi) A decision/order cannot be reviewed under Section 22(3) (f) on the basis of subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or a larger bench of the Tribunal or of a superior court.
(vii) A decision/order cannot be reviewed under Section 22(3)(f).
(viii) While considering an application for review, the Tribunal must confine its adjudication with reference to material which was available at the time of initial decision. The happening of some subsequent event or development cannot be taken note of for declaring the initial order/decision as vitiated by an error apparent.
(ix) Mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review. The party seeking review has also to show that such matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence the same could not be produced before the Court/Tribunal earlier."
10. In view of the law laid down in the above extracted judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we do not find any merit in the Review Petition. 7 RA 17/2025 in OA 1880/2016
11. The sine qua non for review of an order is error apparent on the face of record. The review applicant has failed to point out any error apparent on the face of record, warranting review of the order, dated 26.03.2025. If in the opinion of the review applicant, the order passed by the Tribunal is erroneous, remedy lies elsewhere but certainly review is not the remedy.
12. The RA is therefore, rejected by circulation.
(SANGAM NARAIN SRIVASTAVA) (M. SWAMINATHAN)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)
26.06.2025
mas