Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SHRI PRABHAKAR BHIKAJI INGLE.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/03/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCC (3) 463 JT 1996 (3) 567
1996 SCALE (3)7
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have heard the counsel on both sides. Admittedly,
the respondent had filed O.A. No.1169/93 in the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench against the order
passed by the Commissioner of Police, Bombay removing him
from service. The Commissioner had exercised his power under
Art.311(2)(b) of the Constitution holding that in the
circumstances it was not practicable to conduct an enquiry
against the respondent. That order came to be confirmed by
the Tribunal dismissing the O.A. on March 6, 1995. Against
that, the respondent filed SLP (C) No.11433/95 which was
dismissed by this Court on 25.8.95. Pending the SLP, the
respondent filed a review application in the Tribunal. The
Tribunal after receipt of the order passed by this Court
dismissing the SLP, by the impugned order dated 2.11.95
reviewed the order and set aside the order of dismissal.
Thus this appeal by special leave.
It is contended for the respondent that the dismissal
of the SLP does not preclude the Tribunal from reviewing the
order since the dismissal was a non-speaking order. We fail
to appreciate the contention of the respondent. It is true
that this Court has held that the dismissal of SLP without
speaking order does not constitute res judicata. The
principle of res judicata is founded on public policy that
the parties cannot be permitted to have the controversy
directly or substantially in issue between the same parties
or those claiming under the parties in the subsequent suit
in the same proceedings in the subsequent stages cannot be
raised once over. It is a sound principle of public policy
to prevent vexation.
But in this case, when the self-same main order was
confirmed by this Court, the question arises whether the
Tribunal has had power under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC or any
other appropriate provision under the Tribunals Act to
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
review the orders passed by it and confirmed by this Court
by refusing to grant leave. We find that the exercise of the
review power is deleterious to the judicial discipline. Once
this Court has confirmed the order passed by the Tribunal,
that becomes final. Therefore, the Tribunal cannot have any
power to review the previous order which stands merged with
the order passed by this Court.
It is next contended by the learned counsel for the
respondent that though the Tribunal was communicated with
the order of this Court dated 25.8.95, it has thereafter
passed the order. It would mean that though it had the
knowledge of dismissal of the order passed by this Court,
the Tribunal has exercised the power of review and that,
therefore, it cannot be said to be illegal. We are wholly
unable to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel.
We could appreciate that if the Tribunal had no knowledge of
dismissal of the SLP it might, in certain circumstances,
review its earlier order, e.g., if it was found that the
order was vitiated by any manifest error of law apparent on
the face of the record. But having received the
communication that this Court has already upheld its order,
the Tribunal’s exercise of power can be said to be audacious
and without any judicial discipline. Under those
circumstances, we donot think that the Tribunal is justified
in reviewing its own order when this Court had confirmed the
order passed earlier.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The review order is
set aside. But in the circumstances without costs.