9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 998X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 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. - Civil Review No. 2 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 12-11-2014 - Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan For the Petitioner : Mr. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the respondent : Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate, Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General, with Mr. Romesh Verma, Mr. V.S. Chauhan, Addl. A.Gs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... than settled law is that an error contemplated under the rule must be such, which is apparent on the face of the record and not an error which has to be fished out and searched. It must essentially be an error of inadvertence and definitely something more than a mere error and must be one which must be manifest on the face of the record. If the error is so apparent that without further investigation or inquiry only one conclusion can be drawn in favour of the applicant, in such circumstances, the review will lie. However, under the guise of review, the parties are not entitled to re-hearing of the same issue but the issue can be decided just by a perusal of the record and if it is manifest can be set right by reviewing the order. It must be remembered that in exercise of the powers of review this court cannot sit in appeal over its own order. Re-hearing of the matter is impermissible in law, since the power of review is an exception to the general rule that once the judgement is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. It has to be remembered that power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. The review cannot be treated like an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Inquiring Authority has taken on record various documents of presenting side in violation of Rule 14(15) of the Rules. (3) The Rule 15(2) and Rule 15(2A) of the rules have been violated. (4) The impugned order/ notification is not a speaking order. The Rule 17 has been violated. The proceedings of the Full Court meeting dated 7.4.2004 were not supplied to the petitioner, which has caused prejudice to the petitioner. (5) The statements of most of the witnesses of the presenting side were not supplied at the proper time to the petitioner. The Inquiring Authority did not provide appropriate opportunity to the petitioner to lead defence evidence. The Inquiring Authority was biased. The Inquiring Authority has only considered the case of the presenting side and the evidence led by the petitioner has not been considered. There is no legal evidence in the inquiry in support of various charges. The written arguments submitted to the Inquiring Authority were not considered. (6) The Disciplinary Authority did not give personal hearing at the stage of considering reply to chargesheet and also at the final stage when the comments of the petitioner to the inquiry report were sou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthority may also allow the Government servant to produce new evidence, if it is of the opinion that the production of such evidence is necessary in the interests of justice. Note.-- New evidence shall not be permitted or called for or any witness shall not be recalled to fill up any gap in the evidence. Such evidence may be called for only when there is an inherent lacuna or defect in the evidence which has been produced originally. 5. A perusal of the Rule would clearly show that there is no absolute bar under the Rules in production of new evidence at the stage of closing the case on behalf of the disciplinary authority. It is permissible at the discretion of the Inquiry Officer. It is the duty of the Inquiring Authority to make every possible and permissible attempt to find out the truth and that is why it is sometimes termed as fact finding enquiry. In the event of the Inquiry Officer allowing the production of such new evidence, the delinquent government servant shall be entitled to have, if he deems, a copy of the list of further evidence proposed to be produced and an adjournment by clear three days before the production of such new evidence. The delinquent shall als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r production of new evidence. If such a process is adopted, certain safeguards are prescribed under the Rule so as not to cause any prejudice to the delinquent officer. He is to be given the list of documents, he is to be granted three clear days time, he is to be granted an opportunity to inspect the documents and he is also to be given an opportunity to lead fresh evidence if it is required in the interest of justice. The only restriction is that the evidence thus led shall not be to fill the gaps in the evidence already tendered. But such evidence is permissible to fill up any inherent lacuna or defect in the evidence which has already been tendered. Filling up any gap in the evidence and filling up an inherent lacuna or defect in the evidence are provided in the Rule in contradistinction to each other. The very purpose of inquiry is to find out the facts on the best available evidence. But, in the process the course of justice shall not be deflected. Sharpening the evidence is different and distinct from filling up any gap or in-consistency in the evidence. Curing any defect in the evidence already tendered so as to make it legally perfect is different from filling up the gap i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. Exhibit P-50 is the application for visa on arrival at Bangkok. There is no dispute with regard to the Passport and the details with regard to the address of the applicant and the date on which the application has been filed at Thailand. Having stated before the inquiry officer that the delinquent employee does not have anything to rebut on the evidence thus produced, it is absolutely futile to contend that the documents have been admitted in evidence in violation of the procedure under Rule 14(15). The production being legally permissible, it cannot be said that the inquiry has been conducted in violation of the Rules. 9. PW-1, Shri Promod Sood, Manager, Liaison and Customer Services of Thai Airways International, PCL, New Delhi, has clearly stated before the Inquiry Officer that . as per the passengers manifest, which I have brought today (Ext. P-2), a person named Singh K.P. had travelled by our flight No. TG 316, dated 10th December, 2002 from Indira Gandhi International Airport, Delhi to Bangkok. As per the passengers manifest, Singh Deepa has also travelled by this flight from New Delhi to Bangkok. As per the passengers manifest, Singh Deepa Ms and Singh K.P. M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... son could ever have arrived at that conclusion. The detailed findings quoted above, leaving no manner of doubt that this Court had dealt with all the contentions raised by the petitioner minutely and there is nothing on record to suggest even remotely that there is any error much less error apparent on the face of such findings, which may call for interference. 8. Insofar as second contention regarding bias is concerned, the same have been dealt with in the following manner: 15. As far as the allegation of bias is concerned, admittedly, the petitioner has not approached the reviewing authority for change of inquiry officer or with any such allegation, though made an attempt before the inquiry authority. The inquiry authority having turned down the application on merits, rules permitted him to approach the reviewing authority namely the High Court. Such a step having not taken by the delinquent officer, it cannot be said that there is any basis on the allegation of bias. Therefore, the report of inquiry cannot be assailed as invalid on that count. 9. No doubt, the petitioner had approached the reviewing authority for change of Inquiry Officer on the allegation of bias, b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the face of the record. While the former can be corrected only by a higher forum, the latter can be corrected by exercise of review jurisdiction. It is settled law that even if a decision is erroneous even then it is not permissible for this Court in exercise of its review jurisdiction to re-hear and correct the same. 11. Lastly, insofar as the third contention regarding violation of Rule 17 of CCS (CCA) Rules is concerned, the same has been dealt with exhaustively by this Court in the following manner: 22. The requirement of Rule 17 on communication of orders infact has laid stress on the communication of the orders with respect to the findings on each article of charge. In the instant case the disciplinary authority had already communicated the findings on the articles of charge which were established before the inquiry authority. 23. No doubt, right to reason is also one of the facets of the principles of natural justice. However, under the scheme of the disciplinary proceedings as per the CCS (CCA) Rules, though an opportunity to make a representation on the report of the inquiry has been conferred on the delinquent employee, it cannot be said that the representatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs. 12. In case the submissions of the petitioner are tested on the touch-stone of what has been laid down by this Court in M/s Harvel Agua India Private Limited (supra), it would be seen that 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. 13. In view of aforesaid discussion, the petitioner has failed to make out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
