Central Administrative Tribunal - DelhiReview vs Sheesh Pal on 21 May, 2012CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

R.A. No. 159/2012 InOA 2991/2011New Delhi this the  21st day May, 2012

HONBLE MR. G. GEORGE PARACKEN, MEMBER (J)
HONBLE DR. VEENA CHHOTRAY, MEMBER (A)

Delhi Transport Corporation,
I.P.Estate,
New Delhi-110002.(through Chairman-cum-Managing 
Director)							

Review Applicant.(through Shri Manish Garg, Advocate)

VERSUS

Sheesh Pal, Driver,
B. No. 15861, Dwarka-2 Depot,
R/o Z-34, Shyam Vihar, 
Phase-I, Nazafgarh,
New Delhi-110043....Respondent.ORDER BY CIRCULATION

Mr. G. George Paracken:By this Application, the applicant is seeking the review of this Tribunals order dated 2.3.2012 in OA No. 2991/2011.  The operative part of the order is as under:-6.	A perusal of the impugned orders extracted above would show that they are issued in a perfunctory manner without considering the Inquiry Officers report and the representation made by the applicant on the report.  In the case of the appellate order what is blatantly stated is that the appellate authority has not considered the appeal without realizing the law that consideration of an appeal by the appellate authority is a statutory duty and it cannot just say that it will not consider the appeal.  We, therefore, quash and set aside the order of the disciplinary authority dated 25.11.2009 imposing upon him the punishment of stoppage of further due one annual pay increment with cumulative effect and the appellate authoritys orders conveyed by the respondents vide their Annexure A-3 order dated 19.01.2011 and 20.02.2011. Consequently, the respondents shall pass orders restoring the annual increment of the applicant which has been stopped forthwith.  Further, we remit the case back to the disciplinary authority to consider the inquiry officers report and the representation of the applicant and pass a reasoned and speaking order as is expected of a disciplinary authority.  If the decision of the disciplinary authority goes against the applicant, he shall have the liberty to file appeal against the said order and the appellate authority shall consider the same in accordance with the rules and pass a self contained, speaking and reasoned order under its signature.   We make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the case at this stage.  There shall be no order as to costs.2.	According to the review applicant, there is no impediment in compliance of the aforesaid order dated 2.3.2012 to the extent of remitting the case back to the disciplinary authority to consider the Inquiry Officers report and the representation of the applicant and pass a reasoned and speaking order as is expected of a disciplinary authority.  He has also no objection with regard to the observation of this Tribunal in the aforesaid order that if the decision of the disciplinary authority goes against the applicant, he shall have the liberty to file appeal against the said order and the appellate authority shall consider the same in accordance with the rules and pass a self contained, speaking and reasoned order under its signature.  However, according to him, the finding that Consequently, the respondents shall pass orders restoring the annual increment of the applicant which has been stopped forthwith calls for review as this Tribunal had not gone into the merits of the case.  Therefore, it appears to be an error apparent on the face of it and contrary to letter and spirit of the observations made in final order and there is impediment for the disciplinary authority and/or appellate authority to pass appropriate order(s) in the case.  Further, according to the Review Applicant, the aforesaid observations amount to prejudging and touching upon the merits of the case. He has also presumed that the said observations could be as a result of some typographical or administrative or clerical error.3.In this regard, the Review Applicant has also relied upon the judgment of the Honble High Court of Delhi in Taxi Operators Union, Delhi Vs. A.A.I and Others 105 (2003) DLT 479, wherein, it has been observed by the Court while relying upon a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case ofS. Nagaraj and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Another, JT 1993 (5) SC 27 as under:-1. Review literally and even judicially means re-examination or re- consideration. Basic philosophy inherent in it is the universal acceptance of human fallibility. Yet in the realm of law the courts and even the statutes lean strongly in favour of finality of decision legally and properly made. Exceptions both statutorily and judicially have been carved out to correct accidental mistakes or miscarriage of justice. It was held that even when there was no statutory provision and no rules were framed by the highest court indicating the circumstances in which it could rectify its order the courts culled out such power to avoid abuse of process or miscarriage of justice.2.	Rectification of an order thus stems from the fundamental principle that justice is above all. It is exercised to remove the error and not for disturbing finality. It was held that justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers.  Neither the rules of procedure nor technicalities of law can stand in its way. The order of the court should not be prejudical to anyone.3.	Even the law bends before justice and if the court finds that the order was passed under a mistake and it would not have exercised the jurisdiction but for the erroneous assumption which in fact did not exist and its perpetration shall result in miscarriage of justice, then it cannot on any principle be precluded from rectifying the error.4.	We have considered the aforesaid submissions of the Review Applicant seeking review of the aforesaid order of this Tribunal dated 02.03.2011 and find them absolutely misplaced.  Neither, there is error apparent on the face of the record nor there was any typing, administrative or clerical mistakes in the aforesaid order as stated in the Review Application.5.	The Apex Court inState of West Bengal Vs. Kamal Sen Gupta & Anr.(2008 (8) SCC 612) culled out the following principles governing entertaining a Review Application:(i) The power of the 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 withOrder 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 specified grounds.(iv) An error which is not self-evident and which can be discovered by a long process of reasoning, cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of record justifying exercise of power underSection 22(3)(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 underSection 22(3)(f)on the basis of subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger bench of the Tribunal or of a superior Court.(vii) 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.(viii) 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 earlier6.	In our considered view, the review applicant has not satisfied any of the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in this Review Application.   Accordingly, this Review Application is dismissed.  There shall be no order as to costs.(Dr. Veena Chhotra)                                  (G. George Paracken)
     Member (A)                                                   Member (J)

SRD