Failure to show error apparent on record or new evidence justifies dismissal of review application with costs.

The respondent (Deepak), a Stenographer Grade-III, had his services terminated by the Ministry of External Affairs under Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965.

The termination was based on a preliminary inquiry by the Bureau of Security, MEA, which alleged impersonation during the Tier 1 SSC examination.

Following the inquiry, an FIR (No. 4/2023) was registered and a charge sheet filed.

The Review Applicants (Union of India) subsequently filed this Review Application (R.A.) with a 152-day delay, seeking to overturn the judgment on the grounds of "newly discovered material evidence" regarding the impersonation and arguing that the initial appointment was conditional.

1. Whether there is any error apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new evidence that warrants a review of the order dated 07.10.2025 under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act.

2. Whether the Review Application constitutes an attempt to re-argue the case on merits rather than identifying a jurisdictional or clerical error.

Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and Order 47 Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC, which restrict the scope of review to errors apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new material not available during initial due diligence.

Principles established in State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Kamal Sengupta & Anr. (2008) 8 SCC 612, which clarify that an erroneous decision cannot be corrected under the guise of review, and mere discovery of new matter is insufficient if that matter was within the knowledge of the party or could have been produced earlier with due diligence.

The Tribunal found that the material facts cited by the Review Applicants—namely the provisional nature of the appointment, the FIR for impersonation, and the preliminary inquiry report—had already been recorded and considered in the original judgment dated 07.10.2025.

The court observed that the termination was stigmatic and based on a preliminary inquiry without a full departmental proceeding, thus justifying the original reliance on the Rinku Kumar precedent.

The Bench noted that the Review Applicants failed to show that any "newly discovered" evidence was unavailable at the time of the original hearing.

The conduct of the applicants—seeking multiple extensions in contempt proceedings to comply with the original order before filing the review—indicated that the R.A. was a strategic delay tactic and a "misuse of the process of law".

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing but dismissed the Review Application on its merits with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- payable to the respondent, characterizing the petition as a misuse of the legal process.