2014 (11) TMI 998 - HC - Indian Laws

Review petition - writ petition preferred by the petitioner seeking quashing of the order whereby the petitioner has been ordered to be removed from service has been dismissed - Held that - The disciplinary authority in the instant case has only accepted the report of the inquiring authority and its findings on the findings thus accepted and recorded, which had already been communicated to the petitioner while supplying the inquiry report, the action has been taken. Thus, there is consideration, there is recording of the finding and communication thereof. The reasons leading to the findings are already there in the inquiry report. Nothing in the report has been added, varied, implied or reversed by the disciplinary authority. The petitioner has failed to point out as to how there is an error apparent in the aforesaid findings. Under the guise of review the petitioner is seeking re-hearing of the issues, which is impermissible in law. The petitioner under the guise of review is not seeking correction of any mistake but is seeking substitution of a view. Review of judgment is not maintainable if the only ground for review is that point is not dealt in correct perspective so long the point has been dealt with and answered. A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. A mere repetition of old and overruled arguments cannot create a ground for review. The judgment sought to be reviewed has to be read as a whole and the petitioner cannot be permitted to pick up or single out a paragraph and juxtapose the same with another paragraph to contend that there is an error apparent on the face of record. In view of aforesaid discussion, the petitioner has failed to make out a case calling for interference under Section 114 read with Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Error apparent on the face of the record.
2. Bias of the Inquiry Officer.
3. Violation of Rule 17 of the CCS (CCA) Rules.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Error Apparent on the Face of the Record:
The petitioner contended that the judgment dated 21.4.2011 had errors apparent on the face of the record, specifically:
- Additional evidence taken by the Inquiry Officer violated Rule 14(15) of the CCS (CCA) Rules.
- The Inquiry Officer was biased.
- Violation of Rule 17 of the CCS (CCA) Rules.

The court referred to a decision in M/s Harvel Agua India Private Ltd. vs. State of H.P. and others, emphasizing that an error must be apparent without further investigation or inquiry. The court cannot re-hear the matter under the guise of review, as review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise. The court found that all points raised by the petitioner had been dealt with in detail by both the learned Single Judge and the court itself in the previous judgment. The court reiterated that the Inquiry Officer's actions were within the permissible scope of Rule 14(15), as the rule allows for new evidence if necessary for justice, provided certain safeguards are met. The court concluded that there was no error apparent on the face of the record.

2. Bias of the Inquiry Officer:
The petitioner alleged bias by the Inquiry Officer, claiming that the court had not recognized his approach to the reviewing authority for a change of the Inquiry Officer. The court noted that the petitioner had indeed approached the reviewing authority but failed to establish actual bias. The court cited the learned Single Judge's findings that the petitioner did not allege specific violations of rules or intentional prejudice by the Inquiry Officer in his application. The court upheld the conclusion that the petitioner failed to establish bias, distinguishing between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. The court emphasized that review jurisdiction does not allow for re-hearing and correcting erroneous decisions.

3. Violation of Rule 17 of the CCS (CCA) Rules:
The petitioner argued that there was a violation of Rule 17, which mandates the Disciplinary Authority to supply the findings on each article of charge to the petitioner. The court found that the Disciplinary Authority had communicated the findings and endorsed the Inquiry Officer's report, satisfying the requirement of providing reasons. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Pragdas Vrs. Union of India, which mandates recording and disclosing reasons. The court concluded that the Disciplinary Authority had complied with this requirement by accepting and acting on the Inquiry Officer's report without adding, varying, or reversing any findings. The petitioner failed to demonstrate any error apparent in these findings.

Conclusion:
The court found that the petitioner was seeking a re-hearing of issues under the guise of review, which is impermissible. The petitioner failed to establish any error apparent on the face of the record. The review petition was dismissed, with parties bearing their own costs.