Review jurisdiction cannot be invoked to re-argue settled issues or challenge conclusions under the guise of an error apparent.

The applicant, a Constable in the Delhi Police, sought a review of the Tribunal's order dated 15.01.2026.

The original dispute (OA No. 1669/2011) pertained to disciplinary proceedings where the applicant alleged that the testimony of a key witness (PW-1) was mistranslated from Hindi to English to falsely establish the witness's presence at the scene

The applicant contended that the Tribunal failed to adjudicate specific prayers regarding remedial action and ignored evidence showing the Inquiry Officer's omissions

The matter came before the Tribunal by way of a Review Application (RA) filed under the civil procedure framework.

1. Whether the applicant established any error apparent on the face of the record or discovered new evidence to justify the exercise of review jurisdiction

2. Whether the re-assertion of previously rejected arguments regarding witness translation and procedural lapses constitutes a valid ground for review

The Tribunal applied the principles of review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which limits review to the discovery of new evidence, errors of fact/law apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reasons

S. Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka (review is to remove error, not disturb finality)

Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi (errors requiring a process of reasoning are not "apparent")

Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P. (review is not an appeal in disguise)

Sow Chandra Kanta v. Sheikh Habib (repetition of overruled arguments is insufficient)

Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhuri (error must be self-evident without long-drawn reasoning)

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s grounds were essentially a repetition of arguments already considered and rejected in the original judgment dated 15.01.2026

Specifically, the applicant’s claims regarding the mistranslation of PW-1’s evidence and the failure of the Tribunal to record reasons for "Prayer B" were viewed not as patent errors, but as challenges to the Tribunal’s conclusions

The Bench noted that the applicant did not present any "new or important matter or evidence" that was previously unavailable

Applying the Thungabhadra Industries standard, the Tribunal reasoned that since the alleged errors were not "patent" or "self-evident"—but rather required re-adjudicating the merits of the disciplinary record—the application was an attempt to re-argue the case, which is prohibited under review jurisdiction

The Tribunal concluded that the RA was devoid of merit as it sought to re-agitate settled issues under the guise of review; All prayers were rejected in circulation