Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A):
1. The review applicant has instituted the instant Review Application under Section 22(3) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with Rule 17 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 with prayer to review the order passed by this Tribunal on 29.11.2011 in OA No.1105/2010.
2. We heard Shri M.K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the review applicant.
3. We are passing the order in the Review Application at the admission stage without issuing any notice to the review respondents, being fully aware that no prejudice would be caused to them.
4. Before we examine the contentions advanced by the learned counsel, we note that the RA attracts delay and latches. As per the CAT (Procedure) Rules, the RA must be filed within 30 days from the date of the order, which, in the present RA, means the RA should have been filed on or before 29.12.2011 but the RA has been filed in the Tribunal on 20.03.2012 after a delay of more than 75 days. However, the applicant moved the MA No.591/2012 and withdrew the same with liberty to file Review Application which was granted by the Tribunal’s order dated 01.03.2012. This does not help the applicant from the period of limitation for filing the review application as the said MA was filed even belatedly that too without any application seeking for condonation of delay. In our considered view, the Review Application may attract limitation, we may examine the Review Application on merits as well.
5. Shri Bhardwaj, at the outset, raised the issue that the Tribunal observed during the final hearing that the respondents would be directed to re-examine the applicant’s case by quashing the penalty order and by remanding the same, to which the respondent’s counsel agreed. This contention is not proper and fair in the sense that one of us [Dr. R.C. Panda, Member (A)] has authored the order along with former Chairman (Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Bali) as it was considered to reserve the order after hearing the parties. It should be noted that no such observation was made. The final hearing took place on 31.10.2011 and the order was pronounced in the open Court on 29.11.2011. To the best of the recollection, there was no observation to remand the case. On the contrary, the counsel for the parties argued the case which have been captured in the order. In view of the reasons given herein, the above contention of the review applicant does not deserve any further consideration by us.
6. Shri Bhardwaj raised another issue. The Tribunal has not considered the contention raised during the final hearing about the non-speaking and non-reasoned character of the orders passed by both the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities. This aspect was examined in the order while deciding the OA. We notice that paragraph 8 of the order passed by the Tribunal in the OA on 29.11.2011 deals with the said contention and has not been accepted by the Tribunal. Therefore, this ground taken in the RA does not have basis for our consideration.
7. With regard to the ground of not granting adequate time during the final hearing as raised by the review applicant, it is appropriate to mention that contentions raised by the counsel for the applicant in the OA might have been limited but the Tribunal has considered all the grounds taken by the applicant in his OA. On the basis of the pleadings as well as the contentions raised during the hearing, the OA was decided and dismissed on merits.
8. The applicant may not be satisfied with the orders passed by the Tribunal in the OA but in the garb of review application this Tribunal cannot sit on appeal against its own order passed on 29.11.2011. Our view is supported by the law laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India Versus Tarit Mohan Das (2003 STPL (LandE) 32747 SC) decided on 8-10-2003, Gopal Singh Versus State Cadre Forest Officers Association [2007 STPL(LE) 38452 SC] and State of West Bengal Versus Kamal Sen Gupta, 2008 (8) SCC 612. Even after detailed examination of the Review Application and the orders passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 1105/2010 decided on 29.11.2011, we do not find any error either in fact or in law which would need our consideration by recalling the order. No apparent error on the face of the record was noticed by us.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as narrated above and guided by the well settled position in law with regard to the review, we are of the considered opinion that there are no errors in the judgment under review and the Review Application does not have merit for our consideration.
10. Resultantly, Review Application being devoid of merits, the same is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.