Judgment:
HON'BLE DR. K B S RAJAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
This Review application has been filed seeking review of the order dated 1st May 2009 in OA 746/06 whereby, the OA stood dismissed.
2. The Review application has been considered. Ground No. A states that documents which were never put to the applicant were relied extensively against the applicant. These documents are the official records and they have been relied upon only to verify certain facts which were to the knowledge of the applicant and to ascertain as to whether there has been any violation of principles of natural justice or whether there has been any legal flaw in the process of enquiry proceedings. To ascertain the same, it is not at all necessary that opportunity should be given to the applicant. Again, even if there is some substance in the ground, the same does not fall within the purview of 'error apparent on the face of records. Thus, this ground has no merit and hence rejected.
3. Ground B: The applicant's contention is that Annexures A-14 to A-16 annexed to the rejoinder have not been considered and thus there is an error on the face of records. It is seen that Annexure A-14 and A-15 relate to travel on 7-7-1989, 30-07-89, 01-08-89 and 02-08-89 and Annexure A-16 is the document of the applicant himself. and these have been duly passed by the Respondents. There is no charge relating to the above. Art. IV confirms the same. The charge against the applicant is that "Thereafter, in his application dated 30-09-90 submitted to the information Officer, he stated that he travelled from Minicoy to Kavaratti by Helicopter on 02-08-89 and requested that helicopter charges of Rs 315/-may be sanctioned for which cash receipt is stated to be missing. By the above said act, Shri Mohammedkoya has failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and conducted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant and thereby violated the provisions of Rule 3(1)(i)(ii)and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964" Finding in this regard is that the applicant himself has admitted that he had not travelled by helicopter on 02-08-89, vide inquiry officer's report. The aspect of admission by the applicant has not been controverted in his representation vide Annexure A-6. The applicant seems to have been under a thorough misconception that there should be a detailed discussion in respect of each and every annexure he has filed. Indication that the documents perused and analysis of disputed items are sufficient to arrive at a decision.
4. Ground C: The applicant has stated, "Para 11 (c and d) the Hon'ble Tribunal appears to proceed on the basis that applicant requested for ex- Post facto sanction. This is wrong...... (emphasis supplied)." The tenor of this ground is absolutely unwarranted and it is expected that the applicant by himself or duly advised exercises restraint from using such terms. One can be firm even without being impolite. (Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar v. Union of India, (1999) 7 SCC 409). Again, the Tribunal never proceeded on the basis that the applicant requested for ex post facto sanction. Para 11(a) talks of the bill for Rs 1366 for which ex post facto sanction was accorded. There is no reference to the applicant's request for the same in the said para. Again, in para 11(c) there has been a reference to the said bill and here again, all that was stated that the request for regularisation was forwarded. It was a request from the Ministry, as expressly mentioned in the next sentences. As regards 11(d), there has been a request from the applicant, and this is in respect of yet another journey for which no ex post facto sanction was sought for. Thus, having thoroughly been confused, the applicant has chosen to raise this futile and meritless ground. Thus, this also has absolutely no merit and does not meet the requirement of 'error apparent on the face of records.'
5. Ground D: This relates to the use of definite article "the" and the same has been fully considered and explained as to why this submission of the applicant cannot be accepted. In fact, when the counsel was advised to show even one reference where without the article 'the' there has been an use of the term "Disciplinary authority", the counsel after making an unsuccessful attempt for the same jumped to another ground!
6. Ground E: This ground starts with the words, " The ground on delay is brushed aside. (emphasis supplied. Observation of this Tribunal in respect of Ground C holds good here too!). Annexure A-3 simply states, "I am not in a position to recollect the factual position of the events took place 12 years back, as stated in the article of charges without seeing the originals of documents enlisted in the Annexure III....." Again, the applicant had never raised his voice before the disciplinary authority or appellate authority as to substantiate that serious prejudice has been caused to him due to delay. In any event, this ground does not conform to the requirements of ground for review purpose.
7. In view of the above, the Review lacking in merit and not conforming to the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 and the attendant provisions in the A.T. Act and Procedure Rules, the same is dismissed in circulation.