CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE
BENCH, BANGALORE
REVIEW
APPLICATION NO.02/2012
IN
ORIGINAL
APPLICATION NO.151/2009
DATED THIS
THE DAY OF ..............,
2012
HON'BLE
SMT. LEENA MEHENDALE ... MEMBER(A)
HON'BLE
SHRI V.AJAY KUMAR ... MEMBER(J)
Sri M.S. Murali,
S/o Late M.K. Sathyanarayana Rao,
Aged about 52 years,
Accounts Officer,
Sports Authority of India, Bhopal,
presently r/at No.424, 4th Main, BSK 1st
Stage,
Srinagar, Bangalore – 50. ... Applicant
(By
Advocate Shri K. Sreedhara & Associates)
Vs.
1. The Union of India,
The
Secretary,
Department of Youth Affairs and Sport,
Shastri
Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 001.
2. The Director General,
Sports Authority
of India,
Indira
Gandhi Stadium,
IPA
Estate, New Delhi – 110 003.
3. The Director (Personnel and Coaching),
Sports
Authority of India,
Indira
Gandhi Stadium, IPA Estate,
New Delhi
– 110 003.
4. The Director,
Sports
Authority of India,
NSSC,
Kengeri Bangalore ... Respondents
O
R D E R (BY CIRCULATAION)
Hon'ble Smt. Leena Mehendale, Member (A) :
This R.A. is filed under Section
22(3)(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking review of the order
dated 08.09.2011 passed in OA No.151/2009, by mentioning the grounds in paras 4
to 9.
2. The prayer raised in the OA was on the
ground that ACP was denied with effect from 12.2.2002 for not having fulfieed
the required Bench mark in the ACR and the ACP was actually granted only in
2006. It was held therein that the
applicant was aware of adverse remarks in his ACR. He was also aware of the decision of the
department not to consider him eligible for financial upgradation with effect
from 2002. The upgradation was actually
given in 2006 and only then, he filed the OA.
Thus, it has been held that the applicant ought to have raised his
objection to the adverse remarks in the ACR as soon as he got to know about
them and he had not done so.
3. In the RA, the applicant has given all
the grounds to the effect that the adverse remarks in the ACR were not
communicated in time. These grounds have
already been considered at length while passing the order dated 08.09.2011. The provisions for review is not meant for reiterating
the grounds that were already raised in the OA.
The scope and power of the Tribunal is clearly defined under Sec.114
read with Order 47 Rule (1) CPC and it is limited to correction of the patent
error of law or fact which stares in the face without any elaborate argument
being needed to establish. Review cannot
be claimed or asked when it would merely be a fresh hearing of the arguments or
for correction of erroneous view taken earlier.
4. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Ajit
Kumar Rath Vs. State of Orissa and Others
- (1999) 9 SCC 596 held that
“power of review available to the Tribunal under Section 22(3)(f) is not
absolute and is the same as given to a court under Section 114 read with
Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC”. It has further held that “the scope of review
is limited to correction of a patent
error of law or fact which stares in the face, without any elaborate argument
being needed to establish it” and that “exercise of power of review on a ground
other than those set out in Order 47 Rule 1 amounts to abuse of liberty granted
to the Tribunal and hence review cannot be claimed or asked merely for a fresh hearing or arguments or corrections of an erroneous view
taken earlier”.
5. In Union of India Vs Tarit Ranjan Das – 2004 SCC
(L&S) 160 – the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the scope of 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”.
6. In State of West Bengal and Others Vs. Kamal Sengupta and Another – (2008) 8 SCC
612 – Hon'ble Apex Court after referring to Ajit
Kumar Rath's case (supra) held that an order or decision
or judgement cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or on
the ground a different view could have been taken by the Court/Tribunal on a
point of fact or law and while exercising the power of review the
Court/Tribunal concerned cannot sit in an appeal over its judgment/decision”.
7. The Review Applicant has failed to show
any valid reason while seeking to invoke the review jurisdiction of this
Tribunal. If the applicant is aggrieved
by the orders of this Tribunal on the ground that the same is erroneous, his
remedy lies elsewhere but not a review as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
8. In view of the above we do not find any
valid ground to entertain the RA and accordingly the same is dismissed.
(V.AJAY KUMAR) (LEENA MEHENDALE)
MEMBER(J) MEMBER(A)
psp.
No comments:
Post a Comment