CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE
BENCH, BANGALORE
DATED THIS
THE DAY OF ..............,
REVIEW
APPLICATION NO.11/2012
IN
ORIGINAL
APPLICATION NO.245/2009
HON'BLE
SMT. LEENA MEHENDALE ... MEMBER(A)
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
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 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)
psp.
No comments:
Post a Comment