Wednesday, November 7, 2012

RA NO.11/2012 in OA 245/2009 ????-2012


DATED THIS THE                DAY OF ..............,



HON'BLE SHRI V.AJAY KUMAR              ...         MEMBER(J)

Vinod Kumar Narula,
S/o Harbans Lal Narula,
Aged about 58 years,
Working as Junior Stenographer,
O/o The Director,
Central Food Technological Research Institute,
(Council of Scientiflc and Industrial Research),
Mysore – 570 020.
R/of No.132-B, Pocket-6, MIG Flats,
Mayur Viohar Phase-III, Delhi – 110 096
(presently camping at Bangalore)                        ...                     Applicant

(By Advocate Shri Izzhar Ahmed)

1. The Director,
   Central Food Technological Research Institute,
   (Council of Scientiflc and Industrial Research),
   Mysore – 570 020.

2. The Director General,
   Council of Scientific and Industrial Research,
   Rafi Marg, New Delhi – 110 001.

3. The Union of India,
   Ministry of Science & Technology,
   Rep. by the Secretary,
   Technology Bhavan,
   New Mehrauli Road,
   New Delhi – 110 016.                               ...                                 Respondents


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 14.12.2011 passed in OA No.245/2009, by mentioning the grounds in paras 4 to 9. 

2.         MA 164/2012 is also filed for condoning the delay in filing the R.A.  The saie is allowed.

3.         In brief, the applicant being Junior Stenographer to the Head of Office, was chaged sheeted in 1989, on the ground that he failed to maintain absolute integrity by accepting an amount of Rs.5,000/- as a motive for doing certain acts of omission and commission to favour 3 firms whose samples had been presented to CFTRI for testing.  The incident is supposed to have taken place in 1981, a criminal case was registered which was finally disposed of by Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, in 2009.  In the meantime, the departmental enquiry had proceeded and he was dismissed in 1986.  Hence, in 2009, he approached the Respondents for being reinstated and when the same prayer was not acceded to, he filed OA No.245/2009 praying for setting aside the 1986 order of the Disciplinary Authority and the 1988 order of the Appellate Authority.

4.         We had gone through all the facts and the grounds mentioned in the application and passed the order dismissing the OA.  We had also mentioned that the enquiry conducted by the Inquiry Officer was a detailed and thorough enquiry and that the order passed by the DA and the AA were both reasoned orders with due application of mind.  On receipt of the RA, we have once again perused the grounds mentioned from paras 5.1 to 5.8 and we observe that those points were totally taken into account while passing the order dated 14.12.2011.  Now, in the RA, some new grounds at para 2(a) to 2(d) are raised.  He is not entitled to raise new grounds in the RA.

5.         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. 

6.         It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court  in Ajik 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”.

7.         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”.

8.         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”.

9.         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.

10.       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)


No comments:

Post a Comment