RUKHSANA KHATOON vs RAIS ALI & ORS

Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi

MA No. 4045/2026
In
RA No. 100/2026
(Diary No. 7570/2026)
In
OA No. 3480/2024


th
New Delhi, this the 25 day of August, 2026


Hon’ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon’ble Mr. B. Anand, Member (A)


Rukhsana Khatoon
Aged about 30 years
W/o Rais Ali
R/o 57 Ghosipurwa
Geeta Vatika, Shahpur, Gorakhpur
Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh-273006
... Applicant


Versus

1. Rais Ali
Aged about 31 years
S/o Sh. Akbar Ali
Ex-helper Khallasi, Water Service
North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur
Residence of H.No. 1 Desu Colony Gate
Near Gas Agency, Jain Colony
Delhi 110007

2. The General Manager
North Eastern Railways
Gorakhpur-273012

NEHA
SHARMA
NEHA
2026.09.01
SHARMA
17:21:09+05'30'

2 RA Diary No. 7570/2026 in
OA No. 3480/2024

3. The Principal Chief Mechanical Engineer
North Eastern Railways
Gorakhpur UP 273012

4. The Chief Workshop Manager
North Eastern Railways Gorakhpur UP-273012

5. The Works Manager
Railway Mechanical Workshop
North Eastern Railways
Gorakhpur UP 273012

6. The Assistant Workshop Manager-I
Railway Mechanical Workshop
North Eastern Railways
Gorakhpur UP 273012
... Respondent

























NEHA
SHARMA
NEHA
2026.09.01
SHARMA
17:21:09+05'30'

3 RA Diary No. 7570/2026 in
OA No. 3480/2024


O R D E R (By Circulation)

Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J):

The present Review Application (RA) has been filed by
the applicant seeking review of the order dated 06.11.2025
passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 3480/2024.
2. The review applicant, who is the wife of the original
applicant in OA No. 3480/2024 and was not a party to the OA,
has sought review on the following grounds:
(i) It is contended that the Tribunal failed to properly notice
the order dated 29.05.2023 and according to the review
applicant, the Tribunal ought to have left it open to the
disciplinary authority to take a decision.
(ii) It is contended that the Tribunal, while allowing the OA
failed to consider Rule 25(5)(b), which, according to the
review applicant, permitted enhancement of penalty by the
appellate authority within six months from the date of the
disciplinary authority’s order.
NEHA
SHARMA
NEHA
2026.09.01
SHARMA
17:21:09+05'30'

4 RA Diary No. 7570/2026 in
OA No. 3480/2024

(iii) The review applicant contends that the departmental
proceedings were initiated on the basis of her complaints
regarding the second marriage of Rais Ali, respondent no. 1
herein. She therefore claims that she was a necessary party to
the OA and that the proceedings were adversely affecting her
rights and interests.
(iv) It is asserted that there was no valid divorce between the
review applicant and Rais Ali, respondent no. 1 herein and that
this was apparent from the order dated 03.01.2022 passed by
the ACJM, Gorakhpur.
(v) The review applicant contends that, although she was not
impleaded in the OA, being an aggrieved person she has locus
to seek review/reconsideration of the judgment. She therefore
claims that the review is maintainable under the principle laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Ajit
Babu and ors. vs. Union of India and ors. reported in AIR
1997 SC 3277 . The review applicant contends that the enquiry
officer had correctly found the charges proved and alleges that
NEHA
SHARMA
NEHA
2026.09.01
SHARMA
17:21:09+05'30'

5 RA Diary No. 7570/2026 in
OA No. 3480/2024

the Railway administration acted in connivance with Rais Ali,
respondent no. 1 herein.
3. The Review Applicant has also filed the captioned MA
No. 4045/2026 seeking condonation of delay of 211 days in
filing of the present RA. In such application, it is contended
by the review applicant that she came to know of the
Tribunal’s judgment dated 06.11.2025 only on 05.06.2026.
Immediately thereafter, she submitted a representation to the
Chief Workshop Manager requesting that no payment be made
unless hearing before the Tribunal is made in respect of the
present RA. She, therefore, claims that the delay occurred
because she was not aware of the judgment earlier , and that the
Review Application was filed promptly after acquiring
knowledge of the judgment.
4. For the reasons mentioned therein in the MA, the same is
allowed . The delay of 211 days in filing the present RA is
condoned.
5. The scope of review jurisdiction is well settled. The
power of review is not akin to the appellate jurisdiction. A
NEHA
SHARMA
NEHA
2026.09.01
SHARMA
17:21:09+05'30'

6 RA Diary No. 7570/2026 in
OA No. 3480/2024

review lies only where there exists an error apparent on the
face of the record, or where new and important matter or
evidence, despite exercise of due diligence, could not be
produced earlier. A review cannot be invoked merely because
a party seeks a rehearing on merits or desires that another view
be taken on the same set of facts. The reliance placed by the
review applicant upon K. Ajit Babu (supra) does not help her
case. The said judgment holds that an aggrieved person who
was not a party to the earlier proceedings may challenge a
decision which affects him or her, but the power of review
nevertheless remains confined to the recognised grounds of
review. In the instant case, the review applicant was
admittedly not a party to OA No. 3480/2024. The
order/judgment impugned in the present RA records that the
original applicant, Rais Ali, challenged his dismissal from
service and the consequential departmental proceedings. The
Tribunal after considering the pleadings held that the appellate
authority could not have interfered with the exoneration by the
disciplinary authority relying upon the decision in P.
Narayana & Ors. v. Additional Divisional Railway Manager,
NEHA
SHARMA
NEHA
2026.09.01
SHARMA
17:21:09+05'30'

7 RA Diary No. 7570/2026 in
OA No. 3480/2024

Guntakal & Ors. As regards the contention that Rule 25(5)(b)
was not considered, the same also does not constitute an error
apparent on the face of the record. The contention that the
review applicant was a necessary party also does not constitute
any error in the judgment. The OA was filed by Rais Ali,
respondent no. 1 in the present RA, challenging the
departmental proceedings against him. The relief sought in the
OA was against the orders passed by the department. The
Tribunal therefore had to adjudicate upon the orders
challenged by Rais Ali. The fact that the disciplinary
proceedings originated from a complaint made by the review
applicant does not, by itself, make her a necessary party. The
grounds raised by the Review Applicant regarding her
complaint and divorce proceedings and its effect on the
departmental proceedings cannot be re-examined in a review
merely because the review applicant considers that the
Tribunal ought to have reached a different conclusion.
6. We draw support in this regard from the law laid down
by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of West
Bengal & Ors. vs. Kamal Sengupta & Anr. reported in
NEHA
SHARMA
NEHA
2026.09.01
SHARMA
17:21:09+05'30'

8 RA Diary No. 7570/2026 in
OA No. 3480/2024

(2008) 8 SCC 612 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court after
considering the relevant provisions of Section 22(3)(f) of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and the provisions of
Order 47 Rule (1) of CPC has culled out the principles in
paragraph 35 which read as under:
“ 35. The principles which can be culled out from the
abovenoted judgments are:
(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 with Order 47 Rule 1 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 under Section
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 under
Section 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 a new or important matter or
evidence is not sufficient ground for review. The party
NEHA
SHARMA
NEHA
2026.09.01
SHARMA
17:21:09+05'30'

9 RA Diary No. 7570/2026 in
OA No. 3480/2024

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 earlier.”
7. The Tribunal, in the order sought to be reviewed had
considered the departmental inquiry, the finding of the Inquiry
Officer and the order of the disciplinary authority dated
29.05.2023, before passing the final order/judgment.
8. The present Review Application seeks re-appreciation of
the facts and provisions, reconsideration of the findings
recorded in the OA and adjudication of disputes concerning
the marriage and divorce. None of these grounds discloses an
error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of any new
and important matter or evidence or any other sufficient reason
warranting exercise of the review jurisdiction.
9. Accordingly, the Review Application is devoid of merit
and does not satisfy the parameters of review jurisdiction. It is,
therefore, liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed,
in circulation.

NEHA
SHARMA
NEHA
2026.09.01
SHARMA
17:21:09+05'30'

10 RA Diary No. 7570/2026 in
OA No. 3480/2024


10. The Registry is directed to assign an appropriate number
to the Review Application.


(B. Anand) (R.N. Singh)
Member (A) Member (J)



/NS/

NEHA
SHARMA
NEHA
2026.09.01
SHARMA
17:21:09+05'30'